Infectious Diseases

A majority of primary care physicians recommended the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to children aged 11-12 years and older, and about half of them used a presumptive style to recommend the vaccine, based on survey responses from 530 clinicians.

“Because of the crucial role of provider recommendation in parental decisions to vaccinate, a great deal of research and intervention efforts have been focused on improving provider communication regarding HPV vaccination,” Allison Kempe, MD, of the University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

“A presumptive style of initiating HPV vaccine discussions uses words that convey an assumption of vaccination and does not discuss the HPV vaccine in a different manner than other adolescent vaccines,” the authors explained. By contrast, “a conversational style engages parents in an open-ended discussion about the HPV vaccine without linguistic presupposition of vaccination.” Findings from multiple studies have shown that the presumptive approach is associated with higher acceptance of the HPV vaccine, compared with the conversational approach.

The researchers examined survey responses from a nationally representative sample of 302 pediatricians and 228 family physicians. Almost all clinicians in both specialties (99% of pediatricians, 90% of FPs) said they strongly recommended the HPV vaccine for girls aged 15 years and older. Strong recommendations for the HPV vaccine were lowest in both specialties for boys aged 11-12 years (83% of pediatricians, 66% of FPs).

Significantly more pediatricians than FPs reported using a presumptive style when discussing the HPV vaccine (65% vs. 42%, respectively; P <.0001). Overall, 40% of the survey respondents used standing orders for HPV vaccination and 42% had electronic alerts in patients’ medical records to prompt an HPV vaccine discussion.

The proportion of pediatricians who reported a vaccine refusal or deferral rate of 50% or higher for patients aged 11-12 years was 10% for girls and 23% for boys; among FPs, those percentages were 27% for girls and 36% for boys.

In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with a 50% or higher refusal or deferral rate among 11- to 12-year-olds were similar for both genders and included “not strongly recommending [the vaccine] to 11- to 12-year-old patients, not … always using a presumptive recommendation style, strongly agreeing that they encounter less resistance to HPV vaccination from patients aged 13 years versus patients aged 11 years, and anticipating an uncomfortable discussion when recommending to 11- to 12-year-old patients,” the researchers wrote.

More physicians in both specialties made stronger recommendations for HPV vaccination for patients aged 13 years and older than for those aged 11 and 12 years. However, physicians might overestimate parent and patient resistance to a strong recommendation for the HPV vaccine. A strong recommendation, “delivered in the same way as for other adolescent vaccines and on same day as other adolescent vaccines, may be key to increasing acceptance among parents of 11- to 12-year-old patients,” Dr. Kempe and associates said.

The current two-dose vaccine schedule also promoted complete vaccination, according to a majority of pediatricians and FPs.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports and the potential lack of generalizability of the survey responses. The results, however, were strengthened by the large, nationally representative sample and suggest that the number of physicians who strongly recommend HPV vaccination to 11- and 12-year-olds has increased over the past 5 years, they said.

“Increased use of available communication training materials and applications, as well as further development of evidence-based messages for parents, may be helpful in improving the way HPV is introduced,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers reported that they had no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1475.

A majority of primary care physicians recommended the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to children aged 11-12 years and older, and about half of them used a presumptive style to recommend the vaccine, based on survey responses from 530 clinicians.

“Because of the crucial role of provider recommendation in parental decisions to vaccinate, a great deal of research and intervention efforts have been focused on improving provider communication regarding HPV vaccination,” Allison Kempe, MD, of the University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

“A presumptive style of initiating HPV vaccine discussions uses words that convey an assumption of vaccination and does not discuss the HPV vaccine in a different manner than other adolescent vaccines,” the authors explained. By contrast, “a conversational style engages parents in an open-ended discussion about the HPV vaccine without linguistic presupposition of vaccination.” Findings from multiple studies have shown that the presumptive approach is associated with higher acceptance of the HPV vaccine, compared with the conversational approach.

The researchers examined survey responses from a nationally representative sample of 302 pediatricians and 228 family physicians. Almost all clinicians in both specialties (99% of pediatricians, 90% of FPs) said they strongly recommended the HPV vaccine for girls aged 15 years and older. Strong recommendations for the HPV vaccine were lowest in both specialties for boys aged 11-12 years (83% of pediatricians, 66% of FPs).

Significantly more pediatricians than FPs reported using a presumptive style when discussing the HPV vaccine (65% vs. 42%, respectively; P <.0001). Overall, 40% of the survey respondents used standing orders for HPV vaccination and 42% had electronic alerts in patients’ medical records to prompt an HPV vaccine discussion.

The proportion of pediatricians who reported a vaccine refusal or deferral rate of 50% or higher for patients aged 11-12 years was 10% for girls and 23% for boys; among FPs, those percentages were 27% for girls and 36% for boys.

In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with a 50% or higher refusal or deferral rate among 11- to 12-year-olds were similar for both genders and included “not strongly recommending [the vaccine] to 11- to 12-year-old patients, not … always using a presumptive recommendation style, strongly agreeing that they encounter less resistance to HPV vaccination from patients aged 13 years versus patients aged 11 years, and anticipating an uncomfortable discussion when recommending to 11- to 12-year-old patients,” the researchers wrote.

More physicians in both specialties made stronger recommendations for HPV vaccination for patients aged 13 years and older than for those aged 11 and 12 years. However, physicians might overestimate parent and patient resistance to a strong recommendation for the HPV vaccine. A strong recommendation, “delivered in the same way as for other adolescent vaccines and on same day as other adolescent vaccines, may be key to increasing acceptance among parents of 11- to 12-year-old patients,” Dr. Kempe and associates said.

The current two-dose vaccine schedule also promoted complete vaccination, according to a majority of pediatricians and FPs.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports and the potential lack of generalizability of the survey responses. The results, however, were strengthened by the large, nationally representative sample and suggest that the number of physicians who strongly recommend HPV vaccination to 11- and 12-year-olds has increased over the past 5 years, they said.

“Increased use of available communication training materials and applications, as well as further development of evidence-based messages for parents, may be helpful in improving the way HPV is introduced,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers reported that they had no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1475.

A majority of primary care physicians recommended the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to children aged 11-12 years and older, and about half of them used a presumptive style to recommend the vaccine, based on survey responses from 530 clinicians.

“Because of the crucial role of provider recommendation in parental decisions to vaccinate, a great deal of research and intervention efforts have been focused on improving provider communication regarding HPV vaccination,” Allison Kempe, MD, of the University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and her colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

“A presumptive style of initiating HPV vaccine discussions uses words that convey an assumption of vaccination and does not discuss the HPV vaccine in a different manner than other adolescent vaccines,” the authors explained. By contrast, “a conversational style engages parents in an open-ended discussion about the HPV vaccine without linguistic presupposition of vaccination.” Findings from multiple studies have shown that the presumptive approach is associated with higher acceptance of the HPV vaccine, compared with the conversational approach.

The researchers examined survey responses from a nationally representative sample of 302 pediatricians and 228 family physicians. Almost all clinicians in both specialties (99% of pediatricians, 90% of FPs) said they strongly recommended the HPV vaccine for girls aged 15 years and older. Strong recommendations for the HPV vaccine were lowest in both specialties for boys aged 11-12 years (83% of pediatricians, 66% of FPs).

Significantly more pediatricians than FPs reported using a presumptive style when discussing the HPV vaccine (65% vs. 42%, respectively; P <.0001). Overall, 40% of the survey respondents used standing orders for HPV vaccination and 42% had electronic alerts in patients’ medical records to prompt an HPV vaccine discussion.

The proportion of pediatricians who reported a vaccine refusal or deferral rate of 50% or higher for patients aged 11-12 years was 10% for girls and 23% for boys; among FPs, those percentages were 27% for girls and 36% for boys.

In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with a 50% or higher refusal or deferral rate among 11- to 12-year-olds were similar for both genders and included “not strongly recommending [the vaccine] to 11- to 12-year-old patients, not … always using a presumptive recommendation style, strongly agreeing that they encounter less resistance to HPV vaccination from patients aged 13 years versus patients aged 11 years, and anticipating an uncomfortable discussion when recommending to 11- to 12-year-old patients,” the researchers wrote.

More physicians in both specialties made stronger recommendations for HPV vaccination for patients aged 13 years and older than for those aged 11 and 12 years. However, physicians might overestimate parent and patient resistance to a strong recommendation for the HPV vaccine. A strong recommendation, “delivered in the same way as for other adolescent vaccines and on same day as other adolescent vaccines, may be key to increasing acceptance among parents of 11- to 12-year-old patients,” Dr. Kempe and associates said.

The current two-dose vaccine schedule also promoted complete vaccination, according to a majority of pediatricians and FPs.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports and the potential lack of generalizability of the survey responses. The results, however, were strengthened by the large, nationally representative sample and suggest that the number of physicians who strongly recommend HPV vaccination to 11- and 12-year-olds has increased over the past 5 years, they said.

“Increased use of available communication training materials and applications, as well as further development of evidence-based messages for parents, may be helpful in improving the way HPV is introduced,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers reported that they had no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Kempe A et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1475.

Pharmacist-led intervention reduced inappropriate medication prescriptions

An outpatient pharmacy-led intervention of notifying prescribing physicians to discontinue inappropriate Beers Criteria medications resulted in a greater discontinuation of inappropriate medications for older adults at 6 months, compared with the control group (43% vs. 12% discontinuation).

Citation: Martin P et al. Effect of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on inappropriate medication prescriptions in older adults: The D-PRESCRIBE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1889-98.

 

Omadacycline noninferior for community-acquired pneumonia and acute bacterial soft tissue skin infections

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trials showed omadacycline is a noninferior alternative to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and to linezolid for acute bacterial soft-tissue skin infections.

Citation: Nuzyra (omadacycline) [package insert]. Boston, MA: Paratek Pharmaceuticals. 2018.

 

Lack of evidence to support low-salt diet in adult heart failure patients

Systematic review of multiple databases demonstrated there is limited high-quality evidence to support current guidelines that recommend a low-salt diet to heart failure patients.

Citation: Mahtani KR et al. Reduced salt intake for heart failure: A systematic review. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(12):1693-700.

Magnesium for rate control in rapid atrial fibrillation

Randomized, controlled trial demonstrated that intravenous magnesium sulfate in combination with atrioventricular (AV) nodal blocking agents resulted in better rate control for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response than did placebo given in combination with AV nodal blocking agents.

Citation: Bouida W et al. Low-dose magnesium sulfate versus high-dose in the early management of rapid atrial fibrillation: Randomized controlled double-blind study (LOMAGHI Study). Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Feb;26(2):183-91.

Low versus intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in ICU patients without ARDS

Randomized, clinical trial of low tidal volume versus intermediate tidal volume strategies in invasively ventilated patients without accute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) demonstrated no difference in number of ventilator-free days, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, incidence of ventilator-associated adverse events (ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, pneumothorax), or 28-day mortality.

Citation: Writing Group for the PReVENT Investigators, Simonis FD, Serpa Neto A. Effect of a low vs intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in intensive care unit patients without ARDS: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1872-80.

Pharmacist-led intervention reduced inappropriate medication prescriptions

An outpatient pharmacy-led intervention of notifying prescribing physicians to discontinue inappropriate Beers Criteria medications resulted in a greater discontinuation of inappropriate medications for older adults at 6 months, compared with the control group (43% vs. 12% discontinuation).

Citation: Martin P et al. Effect of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on inappropriate medication prescriptions in older adults: The D-PRESCRIBE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1889-98.

 

Omadacycline noninferior for community-acquired pneumonia and acute bacterial soft tissue skin infections

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trials showed omadacycline is a noninferior alternative to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and to linezolid for acute bacterial soft-tissue skin infections.

Citation: Nuzyra (omadacycline) [package insert]. Boston, MA: Paratek Pharmaceuticals. 2018.

 

Lack of evidence to support low-salt diet in adult heart failure patients

Systematic review of multiple databases demonstrated there is limited high-quality evidence to support current guidelines that recommend a low-salt diet to heart failure patients.

Citation: Mahtani KR et al. Reduced salt intake for heart failure: A systematic review. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(12):1693-700.

Magnesium for rate control in rapid atrial fibrillation

Randomized, controlled trial demonstrated that intravenous magnesium sulfate in combination with atrioventricular (AV) nodal blocking agents resulted in better rate control for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response than did placebo given in combination with AV nodal blocking agents.

Citation: Bouida W et al. Low-dose magnesium sulfate versus high-dose in the early management of rapid atrial fibrillation: Randomized controlled double-blind study (LOMAGHI Study). Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Feb;26(2):183-91.

Low versus intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in ICU patients without ARDS

Randomized, clinical trial of low tidal volume versus intermediate tidal volume strategies in invasively ventilated patients without accute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) demonstrated no difference in number of ventilator-free days, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, incidence of ventilator-associated adverse events (ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, pneumothorax), or 28-day mortality.

Citation: Writing Group for the PReVENT Investigators, Simonis FD, Serpa Neto A. Effect of a low vs intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in intensive care unit patients without ARDS: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1872-80.

Pharmacist-led intervention reduced inappropriate medication prescriptions

An outpatient pharmacy-led intervention of notifying prescribing physicians to discontinue inappropriate Beers Criteria medications resulted in a greater discontinuation of inappropriate medications for older adults at 6 months, compared with the control group (43% vs. 12% discontinuation).

Citation: Martin P et al. Effect of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on inappropriate medication prescriptions in older adults: The D-PRESCRIBE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1889-98.

 

Omadacycline noninferior for community-acquired pneumonia and acute bacterial soft tissue skin infections

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trials showed omadacycline is a noninferior alternative to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and to linezolid for acute bacterial soft-tissue skin infections.

Citation: Nuzyra (omadacycline) [package insert]. Boston, MA: Paratek Pharmaceuticals. 2018.

 

Lack of evidence to support low-salt diet in adult heart failure patients

Systematic review of multiple databases demonstrated there is limited high-quality evidence to support current guidelines that recommend a low-salt diet to heart failure patients.

Citation: Mahtani KR et al. Reduced salt intake for heart failure: A systematic review. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(12):1693-700.

Magnesium for rate control in rapid atrial fibrillation

Randomized, controlled trial demonstrated that intravenous magnesium sulfate in combination with atrioventricular (AV) nodal blocking agents resulted in better rate control for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response than did placebo given in combination with AV nodal blocking agents.

Citation: Bouida W et al. Low-dose magnesium sulfate versus high-dose in the early management of rapid atrial fibrillation: Randomized controlled double-blind study (LOMAGHI Study). Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Feb;26(2):183-91.

Low versus intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in ICU patients without ARDS

Randomized, clinical trial of low tidal volume versus intermediate tidal volume strategies in invasively ventilated patients without accute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) demonstrated no difference in number of ventilator-free days, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, incidence of ventilator-associated adverse events (ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, pneumothorax), or 28-day mortality.

Citation: Writing Group for the PReVENT Investigators, Simonis FD, Serpa Neto A. Effect of a low vs intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in intensive care unit patients without ARDS: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1872-80.

 

Gene editing of donor stem cells prior to transplantation into a patient with both HIV infection and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was safe and effectively treated the patient’s leukemia, but failed to resolve his HIV, investigators reported.

NIAID

The 27-year-old man received an HLA-matched transplant of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) that had been genetically engineered to lack CCR5, a key gateway for HIV entry into cells.

Although the transplant resulted in complete remission of leukemia with full donor chimerism, only about 9% of the posttransplant lymphocytes showed disruption of CCR5, and during a brief trial of antiretroviral therapy interruption his HIV viral load rebounded, reported Hongkui Deng, PhD, and colleagues from Peking University in China.

Although the experiment did not meet its goal of a drug-free HIV remission, it serves as a proof of concept for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9) gene editing to treat HIV infection, the authors contend.

“These results show the proof of principle that transplantation and long-term engraftment of CRISPR-edited allogeneic HSPCs can be achieved; however, the efficiency of the response was not adequate to achieve the target of cure of HIV-1 infection,” they wrote in a brief report published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported, other research groups have investigated genetic editing to mimic a naturally occurring mutation that effectively disables the CCR5 HIV coreceptor, preventing the retrovirus from entering healthy cells. The mutation was first identified in a man named Timothy Brown who came to be known as “the Berlin patient” after he was apparently cured of HIV infection after a bone marrow transplant from a donor who had the mutation.

Dr. Deng and colleagues took advantage of HSPC transplantation, a standard therapy for ALL to see whether it could also have beneficial effects on concomitant HIV infection.

They treated donor HSPCs with CRISPR-Cas9 to ablate CCR5 and then delivered them to the patient along with additional CD34-depleted donor cells from mobilized peripheral blood.

The transplant was a success, with neutrophil engraftment on day 13 and platelet engraftment on day 27, and the leukemia was in morphologic complete remission at week 4 following transplantation. The patient remained in complete remission from leukemia throughout the 19-month follow-up period, with full donor chimerism .

However, when a planned interruption of antiretroviral therapy was carried out at 7 months post transplant, the serum viral load increased to 3 × 10⁷ copies/ml at week 4 following interruption, and the patient was restarted on the drug. His viral levels gradually decreased to undetectable level during the subsequent months.

The investigators noted that 2 weeks after the drug interruption trial was started there was a small increase in the percentage of CCR5 insertion/deletions.

“The low efficiency of gene editing in the patient may be due to the competitive engraftment of the coinfused HSPCs in CD34-depleted cells and the persistence of donor T cells. To further clarify the anti-HIV effect of CCR5-ablated HSPCs, it will be essential to increase the gene-editing efficiency of our CRISPR-Cas9 system and improve the transplantation protocol,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission and others (unspecified). All authors reported having nothing to disclose.

 

SOURCE: Xu L et al. N Engl J Med. 2019. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817426.

 

Gene editing of donor stem cells prior to transplantation into a patient with both HIV infection and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was safe and effectively treated the patient’s leukemia, but failed to resolve his HIV, investigators reported.

NIAID

The 27-year-old man received an HLA-matched transplant of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) that had been genetically engineered to lack CCR5, a key gateway for HIV entry into cells.

Although the transplant resulted in complete remission of leukemia with full donor chimerism, only about 9% of the posttransplant lymphocytes showed disruption of CCR5, and during a brief trial of antiretroviral therapy interruption his HIV viral load rebounded, reported Hongkui Deng, PhD, and colleagues from Peking University in China.

Although the experiment did not meet its goal of a drug-free HIV remission, it serves as a proof of concept for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9) gene editing to treat HIV infection, the authors contend.

“These results show the proof of principle that transplantation and long-term engraftment of CRISPR-edited allogeneic HSPCs can be achieved; however, the efficiency of the response was not adequate to achieve the target of cure of HIV-1 infection,” they wrote in a brief report published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported, other research groups have investigated genetic editing to mimic a naturally occurring mutation that effectively disables the CCR5 HIV coreceptor, preventing the retrovirus from entering healthy cells. The mutation was first identified in a man named Timothy Brown who came to be known as “the Berlin patient” after he was apparently cured of HIV infection after a bone marrow transplant from a donor who had the mutation.

Dr. Deng and colleagues took advantage of HSPC transplantation, a standard therapy for ALL to see whether it could also have beneficial effects on concomitant HIV infection.

They treated donor HSPCs with CRISPR-Cas9 to ablate CCR5 and then delivered them to the patient along with additional CD34-depleted donor cells from mobilized peripheral blood.

The transplant was a success, with neutrophil engraftment on day 13 and platelet engraftment on day 27, and the leukemia was in morphologic complete remission at week 4 following transplantation. The patient remained in complete remission from leukemia throughout the 19-month follow-up period, with full donor chimerism .

However, when a planned interruption of antiretroviral therapy was carried out at 7 months post transplant, the serum viral load increased to 3 × 10⁷ copies/ml at week 4 following interruption, and the patient was restarted on the drug. His viral levels gradually decreased to undetectable level during the subsequent months.

The investigators noted that 2 weeks after the drug interruption trial was started there was a small increase in the percentage of CCR5 insertion/deletions.

“The low efficiency of gene editing in the patient may be due to the competitive engraftment of the coinfused HSPCs in CD34-depleted cells and the persistence of donor T cells. To further clarify the anti-HIV effect of CCR5-ablated HSPCs, it will be essential to increase the gene-editing efficiency of our CRISPR-Cas9 system and improve the transplantation protocol,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission and others (unspecified). All authors reported having nothing to disclose.

 

SOURCE: Xu L et al. N Engl J Med. 2019. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817426.

 

Gene editing of donor stem cells prior to transplantation into a patient with both HIV infection and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was safe and effectively treated the patient’s leukemia, but failed to resolve his HIV, investigators reported.

NIAID

The 27-year-old man received an HLA-matched transplant of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) that had been genetically engineered to lack CCR5, a key gateway for HIV entry into cells.

Although the transplant resulted in complete remission of leukemia with full donor chimerism, only about 9% of the posttransplant lymphocytes showed disruption of CCR5, and during a brief trial of antiretroviral therapy interruption his HIV viral load rebounded, reported Hongkui Deng, PhD, and colleagues from Peking University in China.

Although the experiment did not meet its goal of a drug-free HIV remission, it serves as a proof of concept for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9) gene editing to treat HIV infection, the authors contend.

“These results show the proof of principle that transplantation and long-term engraftment of CRISPR-edited allogeneic HSPCs can be achieved; however, the efficiency of the response was not adequate to achieve the target of cure of HIV-1 infection,” they wrote in a brief report published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported, other research groups have investigated genetic editing to mimic a naturally occurring mutation that effectively disables the CCR5 HIV coreceptor, preventing the retrovirus from entering healthy cells. The mutation was first identified in a man named Timothy Brown who came to be known as “the Berlin patient” after he was apparently cured of HIV infection after a bone marrow transplant from a donor who had the mutation.

Dr. Deng and colleagues took advantage of HSPC transplantation, a standard therapy for ALL to see whether it could also have beneficial effects on concomitant HIV infection.

They treated donor HSPCs with CRISPR-Cas9 to ablate CCR5 and then delivered them to the patient along with additional CD34-depleted donor cells from mobilized peripheral blood.

The transplant was a success, with neutrophil engraftment on day 13 and platelet engraftment on day 27, and the leukemia was in morphologic complete remission at week 4 following transplantation. The patient remained in complete remission from leukemia throughout the 19-month follow-up period, with full donor chimerism .

However, when a planned interruption of antiretroviral therapy was carried out at 7 months post transplant, the serum viral load increased to 3 × 10⁷ copies/ml at week 4 following interruption, and the patient was restarted on the drug. His viral levels gradually decreased to undetectable level during the subsequent months.

The investigators noted that 2 weeks after the drug interruption trial was started there was a small increase in the percentage of CCR5 insertion/deletions.

“The low efficiency of gene editing in the patient may be due to the competitive engraftment of the coinfused HSPCs in CD34-depleted cells and the persistence of donor T cells. To further clarify the anti-HIV effect of CCR5-ablated HSPCs, it will be essential to increase the gene-editing efficiency of our CRISPR-Cas9 system and improve the transplantation protocol,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission and others (unspecified). All authors reported having nothing to disclose.

 

SOURCE: Xu L et al. N Engl J Med. 2019. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817426.

 

A new Streptococcus pyogenes genotype (designated M1_UK) emerged in 2014 in England causing an increase in scarlet fever “unprecedented in modern times.” Researchers discovered that this new genotype became dominant during this increased period of scarlet fever. This new genotype was characterized by an increased production of streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin A (SpeA, also known as scarlet fever or erythrogenic toxin A) compared to previous isolates, according to a report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

CDC

The expanded reservoir of M1_UK and the recognized invasive potential of this new form of S. pyogenes provide a plausible explanation for the increased incidence of invasive disease and rationale for global surveillance, according to the online report by Nicola N. Lynskey, PhD, and colleagues.

The researchers analyzed changes in S. pyogenes emm1 genotypes sampled from scarlet fever and invasive disease cases in 2014-2016. The emm1 gene encodes the cell surface M virulence protein and is used for serotyping S. pyogenes isolates. Using regional (northwest London) and national (England and Wales) data, they compared genomes of 135 noninvasive and 552 invasive emm1 isolates from 2009-2016 with 2,800 global emm1 sequences.

During the increase in scarlet fever and invasive disease, emm1 S. pyogenes upper respiratory tract isolates increased significantly in northwest London during the March to May periods over 3 years from 5% of isolates in 2014 to 19% isolates in 2015 to 33% isolates in 2016. Similarly, invasive emm1 isolates collected nationally in the same period increased from 31% of isolates in 2015 to 42% in 2016 (P less than .0001). Sequences of emm1 isolates from 2009-2016 showed emergence of a new emm1 lineage (designated M1_UK), which could be genotypically distinguished from pandemic emm1 isolates (M1_global) by 27 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In addition, the median SpeA protein concentration was 9 times greater among M1_UK isolates than among M1_global isolates. By 2016, M1_UK expanded nationally to comprise 84% of all emm1 genomes tested. Dataset analysis also identified single M1^UK isolates present in Denmark and the United States.

“The expansion of such a lineage within the community reservoir of S. pyogenes might be sufficient to explain England’s recent increase in invasive infection. Further research to assess the likely effects of M1UK on infection transmissibility, treatment response, disease burden, and severity is required, coupled with consideration of public health interventions to limit transmission where appropriate,” Dr. Lynskey and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Linskey NN et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30446-3.

 

A new Streptococcus pyogenes genotype (designated M1_UK) emerged in 2014 in England causing an increase in scarlet fever “unprecedented in modern times.” Researchers discovered that this new genotype became dominant during this increased period of scarlet fever. This new genotype was characterized by an increased production of streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin A (SpeA, also known as scarlet fever or erythrogenic toxin A) compared to previous isolates, according to a report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

CDC

The expanded reservoir of M1_UK and the recognized invasive potential of this new form of S. pyogenes provide a plausible explanation for the increased incidence of invasive disease and rationale for global surveillance, according to the online report by Nicola N. Lynskey, PhD, and colleagues.

The researchers analyzed changes in S. pyogenes emm1 genotypes sampled from scarlet fever and invasive disease cases in 2014-2016. The emm1 gene encodes the cell surface M virulence protein and is used for serotyping S. pyogenes isolates. Using regional (northwest London) and national (England and Wales) data, they compared genomes of 135 noninvasive and 552 invasive emm1 isolates from 2009-2016 with 2,800 global emm1 sequences.

During the increase in scarlet fever and invasive disease, emm1 S. pyogenes upper respiratory tract isolates increased significantly in northwest London during the March to May periods over 3 years from 5% of isolates in 2014 to 19% isolates in 2015 to 33% isolates in 2016. Similarly, invasive emm1 isolates collected nationally in the same period increased from 31% of isolates in 2015 to 42% in 2016 (P less than .0001). Sequences of emm1 isolates from 2009-2016 showed emergence of a new emm1 lineage (designated M1_UK), which could be genotypically distinguished from pandemic emm1 isolates (M1_global) by 27 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In addition, the median SpeA protein concentration was 9 times greater among M1_UK isolates than among M1_global isolates. By 2016, M1_UK expanded nationally to comprise 84% of all emm1 genomes tested. Dataset analysis also identified single M1^UK isolates present in Denmark and the United States.

“The expansion of such a lineage within the community reservoir of S. pyogenes might be sufficient to explain England’s recent increase in invasive infection. Further research to assess the likely effects of M1UK on infection transmissibility, treatment response, disease burden, and severity is required, coupled with consideration of public health interventions to limit transmission where appropriate,” Dr. Lynskey and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Linskey NN et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30446-3.

 

A new Streptococcus pyogenes genotype (designated M1_UK) emerged in 2014 in England causing an increase in scarlet fever “unprecedented in modern times.” Researchers discovered that this new genotype became dominant during this increased period of scarlet fever. This new genotype was characterized by an increased production of streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin A (SpeA, also known as scarlet fever or erythrogenic toxin A) compared to previous isolates, according to a report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

CDC

The expanded reservoir of M1_UK and the recognized invasive potential of this new form of S. pyogenes provide a plausible explanation for the increased incidence of invasive disease and rationale for global surveillance, according to the online report by Nicola N. Lynskey, PhD, and colleagues.

The researchers analyzed changes in S. pyogenes emm1 genotypes sampled from scarlet fever and invasive disease cases in 2014-2016. The emm1 gene encodes the cell surface M virulence protein and is used for serotyping S. pyogenes isolates. Using regional (northwest London) and national (England and Wales) data, they compared genomes of 135 noninvasive and 552 invasive emm1 isolates from 2009-2016 with 2,800 global emm1 sequences.

During the increase in scarlet fever and invasive disease, emm1 S. pyogenes upper respiratory tract isolates increased significantly in northwest London during the March to May periods over 3 years from 5% of isolates in 2014 to 19% isolates in 2015 to 33% isolates in 2016. Similarly, invasive emm1 isolates collected nationally in the same period increased from 31% of isolates in 2015 to 42% in 2016 (P less than .0001). Sequences of emm1 isolates from 2009-2016 showed emergence of a new emm1 lineage (designated M1_UK), which could be genotypically distinguished from pandemic emm1 isolates (M1_global) by 27 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In addition, the median SpeA protein concentration was 9 times greater among M1_UK isolates than among M1_global isolates. By 2016, M1_UK expanded nationally to comprise 84% of all emm1 genomes tested. Dataset analysis also identified single M1^UK isolates present in Denmark and the United States.

“The expansion of such a lineage within the community reservoir of S. pyogenes might be sufficient to explain England’s recent increase in invasive infection. Further research to assess the likely effects of M1UK on infection transmissibility, treatment response, disease burden, and severity is required, coupled with consideration of public health interventions to limit transmission where appropriate,” Dr. Lynskey and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Linskey NN et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30446-3.

 

The number of measles cases reported in the United States dropped for the fourth month in a row in August after reaching a peak of 341 in April, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A total of 24 measles cases were confirmed in August, and the total for the year is now 1,241 cases in 31 states. Only seven of those cases were added during the most recent reporting week, which ended Sept. 5, but five were older cases that had just been reported, the CDC said Sept. 9.

With the ending of the measles outbreak in New York, announced Sept. 3, the largest of the three remaining active outbreaks in the country is in Rockland County, N.Y., just north of the city, which has reported 312 cases since it began in 2018.

The two other outbreaks are located in El Paso, Tex., where six cases have been reported so far, and Wyoming County in western New York State, where five cases have occurred.

[email protected]

 

The number of measles cases reported in the United States dropped for the fourth month in a row in August after reaching a peak of 341 in April, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A total of 24 measles cases were confirmed in August, and the total for the year is now 1,241 cases in 31 states. Only seven of those cases were added during the most recent reporting week, which ended Sept. 5, but five were older cases that had just been reported, the CDC said Sept. 9.

With the ending of the measles outbreak in New York, announced Sept. 3, the largest of the three remaining active outbreaks in the country is in Rockland County, N.Y., just north of the city, which has reported 312 cases since it began in 2018.

The two other outbreaks are located in El Paso, Tex., where six cases have been reported so far, and Wyoming County in western New York State, where five cases have occurred.

[email protected]

 

The number of measles cases reported in the United States dropped for the fourth month in a row in August after reaching a peak of 341 in April, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A total of 24 measles cases were confirmed in August, and the total for the year is now 1,241 cases in 31 states. Only seven of those cases were added during the most recent reporting week, which ended Sept. 5, but five were older cases that had just been reported, the CDC said Sept. 9.

With the ending of the measles outbreak in New York, announced Sept. 3, the largest of the three remaining active outbreaks in the country is in Rockland County, N.Y., just north of the city, which has reported 312 cases since it began in 2018.

The two other outbreaks are located in El Paso, Tex., where six cases have been reported so far, and Wyoming County in western New York State, where five cases have occurred.

[email protected]

Ms. M, a generally healthy 55-year-old woman, was diagnosed recently with severe vitamin D deficiency (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 8 ng/mL). She presents with her second episode of acute viral bronchitis in the past 6 months. She has no history of significant smoking or exposure or history of asthma and does not take respiratory medications. Standard treatment for her level of vitamin D deficiency is 50,000 IU/wk in bolus dosing—but is that your best option for the patient?

ARTIs include nonspecific upper respiratory illnesses, otitis media, sinusitis (~70% viral), pharyngitis, acute bronchitis (also ~70% viral), influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and pneumonia.^1,2 In the United States, ARTIs strain the health care system and are the most common reason for ambulatory care visits, accounting for almost 120 million (about 10% of all) visits per year.³ In addition, ARTIs account for almost 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for adults and almost 75% of antibiotic prescriptions for children—many of which are unnecessary.^2,4

While patient and parent education, antibiotic stewardship programs, and demand management may reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and the overall burden of ARTIs on the health care system, prevention of infections is a powerful tool within the overall approach to managing ARTIs.

STUDY SUMMARY

Vitamin D is protective in smaller doses

This 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 trials (N = 10,933) evaluated vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of ARTIs in the primary care setting. Individual participant data were reevaluated to reduce risk for bias. The Cochrane risk-for-bias tool was used to address threats to validity.

The study included institutional review board–approved, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D₃ or D₂ supplementation of any duration and in any language. The incidence of ARTI was a prespecified efficacy outcome. Duration of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ranged from 7 weeks to 1.5 years.

Outcomes. The primary outcome was an incidence of at least 1 ARTI. Secondary outcomes included incidence of upper and lower ARTIs; incidence of adverse reactions to vitamin D; incidence of emergency department visits or hospital admission or both for ARTI; use of antimicrobials for ARTI; absence from work or school due to ARTI; and mortality (ARTI-related and all-cause).

Findings. Daily or weekly vitamin D supplementation (in doses ranging from < 20 to ≥ 50 µg/d) reduced the risk for ARTI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.88; number needed to treat [NNT], 33). In subgroup ­an­alysis, daily or weekly vitamin D was protective (AOR, 0.81), but bolus dosing (≥ 30,000 IU) was not (AOR, 0.97).

In 2-step analysis, patients benefited if they had baseline circulating 25(OH)D concentrations < 10 ng/mL (AOR, 0.30; NNT, 4); had baseline circulating 25(OH)D levels of 10 to 28 ng/mL (AOR, 0.75; NNT, 15); were ages 1.1 to 15.9 (AOR, 0.59); were ages 16 to 65 (AOR, 0.79); or had a BMI < 25 (AOR, 0.82).

Higher D levels are a different story. Vitamin D supplementation in people with circulating levels of 25(OH)D ≥ 30 ng/mL did not appear to provide benefit (AOR, 0.96). Supplementation in this population did not influence any of the secondary outcomes, ­including risk for all-cause serious adverse events (AOR, 0.98).

 

WHAT’S NEW

A more accurate snapshot

Previous studies of vitamin D and respiratory tract infections were mostly observational in nature. Those that were RCTs used variable doses of vitamin D, had variable baseline 25(OH)D levels, and employed various methods to monitor ARTI symptoms/incidence.^5-8 This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with supplementation using vitamin D₃ or D₂ that used individual participant-level data, which gives a more accurate estimate of outcomes when compared with traditional meta-analyses.

CAVEATS

Only the most deficient benefit?

Vitamin D supplementation was safe and protected against ARTIs overall, but the greatest effect was noted in those who were most severely vitamin D deficient (those with circulating 25(OH)D levels < 10 ng/mL [NNT, 4] and those with circulating 25(OH)D levels 10-28 ng/mL [NNT, 15]). There was no demonstrable effect once circulating 25(OH)D levels reached 30 ng/mL.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Breaking tradition

The study found that both daily and weekly doses of vitamin D were effective in reducing the incidence of ARTIs. However, the doses studied were much lower than those commonly used (10,000 to 50,000 IU bolus), which were ineffective in reducing ARTIs in this meta-analysis. Changing from bolus dosing may prove challenging, as it is an ingrained practice for many providers.

In addition, the authors of the study suggest that one way to provide this level of vitamin D is through food fortification. But this method is often complicated by emotional and/or political issues that could thwart implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[4]:230-231).

Ms. M, a generally healthy 55-year-old woman, was diagnosed recently with severe vitamin D deficiency (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 8 ng/mL). She presents with her second episode of acute viral bronchitis in the past 6 months. She has no history of significant smoking or exposure or history of asthma and does not take respiratory medications. Standard treatment for her level of vitamin D deficiency is 50,000 IU/wk in bolus dosing—but is that your best option for the patient?

ARTIs include nonspecific upper respiratory illnesses, otitis media, sinusitis (~70% viral), pharyngitis, acute bronchitis (also ~70% viral), influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and pneumonia.^1,2 In the United States, ARTIs strain the health care system and are the most common reason for ambulatory care visits, accounting for almost 120 million (about 10% of all) visits per year.³ In addition, ARTIs account for almost 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for adults and almost 75% of antibiotic prescriptions for children—many of which are unnecessary.^2,4

While patient and parent education, antibiotic stewardship programs, and demand management may reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and the overall burden of ARTIs on the health care system, prevention of infections is a powerful tool within the overall approach to managing ARTIs.

STUDY SUMMARY

Vitamin D is protective in smaller doses

This 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 trials (N = 10,933) evaluated vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of ARTIs in the primary care setting. Individual participant data were reevaluated to reduce risk for bias. The Cochrane risk-for-bias tool was used to address threats to validity.

The study included institutional review board–approved, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D₃ or D₂ supplementation of any duration and in any language. The incidence of ARTI was a prespecified efficacy outcome. Duration of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ranged from 7 weeks to 1.5 years.

Outcomes. The primary outcome was an incidence of at least 1 ARTI. Secondary outcomes included incidence of upper and lower ARTIs; incidence of adverse reactions to vitamin D; incidence of emergency department visits or hospital admission or both for ARTI; use of antimicrobials for ARTI; absence from work or school due to ARTI; and mortality (ARTI-related and all-cause).

Findings. Daily or weekly vitamin D supplementation (in doses ranging from < 20 to ≥ 50 µg/d) reduced the risk for ARTI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.88; number needed to treat [NNT], 33). In subgroup ­an­alysis, daily or weekly vitamin D was protective (AOR, 0.81), but bolus dosing (≥ 30,000 IU) was not (AOR, 0.97).

In 2-step analysis, patients benefited if they had baseline circulating 25(OH)D concentrations < 10 ng/mL (AOR, 0.30; NNT, 4); had baseline circulating 25(OH)D levels of 10 to 28 ng/mL (AOR, 0.75; NNT, 15); were ages 1.1 to 15.9 (AOR, 0.59); were ages 16 to 65 (AOR, 0.79); or had a BMI < 25 (AOR, 0.82).

Higher D levels are a different story. Vitamin D supplementation in people with circulating levels of 25(OH)D ≥ 30 ng/mL did not appear to provide benefit (AOR, 0.96). Supplementation in this population did not influence any of the secondary outcomes, ­including risk for all-cause serious adverse events (AOR, 0.98).

 

WHAT’S NEW

A more accurate snapshot

Previous studies of vitamin D and respiratory tract infections were mostly observational in nature. Those that were RCTs used variable doses of vitamin D, had variable baseline 25(OH)D levels, and employed various methods to monitor ARTI symptoms/incidence.^5-8 This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with supplementation using vitamin D₃ or D₂ that used individual participant-level data, which gives a more accurate estimate of outcomes when compared with traditional meta-analyses.

CAVEATS

Only the most deficient benefit?

Vitamin D supplementation was safe and protected against ARTIs overall, but the greatest effect was noted in those who were most severely vitamin D deficient (those with circulating 25(OH)D levels < 10 ng/mL [NNT, 4] and those with circulating 25(OH)D levels 10-28 ng/mL [NNT, 15]). There was no demonstrable effect once circulating 25(OH)D levels reached 30 ng/mL.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Breaking tradition

The study found that both daily and weekly doses of vitamin D were effective in reducing the incidence of ARTIs. However, the doses studied were much lower than those commonly used (10,000 to 50,000 IU bolus), which were ineffective in reducing ARTIs in this meta-analysis. Changing from bolus dosing may prove challenging, as it is an ingrained practice for many providers.

In addition, the authors of the study suggest that one way to provide this level of vitamin D is through food fortification. But this method is often complicated by emotional and/or political issues that could thwart implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[4]:230-231).

Ms. M, a generally healthy 55-year-old woman, was diagnosed recently with severe vitamin D deficiency (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 8 ng/mL). She presents with her second episode of acute viral bronchitis in the past 6 months. She has no history of significant smoking or exposure or history of asthma and does not take respiratory medications. Standard treatment for her level of vitamin D deficiency is 50,000 IU/wk in bolus dosing—but is that your best option for the patient?

ARTIs include nonspecific upper respiratory illnesses, otitis media, sinusitis (~70% viral), pharyngitis, acute bronchitis (also ~70% viral), influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and pneumonia.^1,2 In the United States, ARTIs strain the health care system and are the most common reason for ambulatory care visits, accounting for almost 120 million (about 10% of all) visits per year.³ In addition, ARTIs account for almost 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for adults and almost 75% of antibiotic prescriptions for children—many of which are unnecessary.^2,4

While patient and parent education, antibiotic stewardship programs, and demand management may reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and the overall burden of ARTIs on the health care system, prevention of infections is a powerful tool within the overall approach to managing ARTIs.

STUDY SUMMARY

Vitamin D is protective in smaller doses

This 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 trials (N = 10,933) evaluated vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of ARTIs in the primary care setting. Individual participant data were reevaluated to reduce risk for bias. The Cochrane risk-for-bias tool was used to address threats to validity.

The study included institutional review board–approved, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D₃ or D₂ supplementation of any duration and in any language. The incidence of ARTI was a prespecified efficacy outcome. Duration of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ranged from 7 weeks to 1.5 years.

Outcomes. The primary outcome was an incidence of at least 1 ARTI. Secondary outcomes included incidence of upper and lower ARTIs; incidence of adverse reactions to vitamin D; incidence of emergency department visits or hospital admission or both for ARTI; use of antimicrobials for ARTI; absence from work or school due to ARTI; and mortality (ARTI-related and all-cause).

Findings. Daily or weekly vitamin D supplementation (in doses ranging from < 20 to ≥ 50 µg/d) reduced the risk for ARTI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.88; number needed to treat [NNT], 33). In subgroup ­an­alysis, daily or weekly vitamin D was protective (AOR, 0.81), but bolus dosing (≥ 30,000 IU) was not (AOR, 0.97).

In 2-step analysis, patients benefited if they had baseline circulating 25(OH)D concentrations < 10 ng/mL (AOR, 0.30; NNT, 4); had baseline circulating 25(OH)D levels of 10 to 28 ng/mL (AOR, 0.75; NNT, 15); were ages 1.1 to 15.9 (AOR, 0.59); were ages 16 to 65 (AOR, 0.79); or had a BMI < 25 (AOR, 0.82).

Higher D levels are a different story. Vitamin D supplementation in people with circulating levels of 25(OH)D ≥ 30 ng/mL did not appear to provide benefit (AOR, 0.96). Supplementation in this population did not influence any of the secondary outcomes, ­including risk for all-cause serious adverse events (AOR, 0.98).

 

WHAT’S NEW

A more accurate snapshot

Previous studies of vitamin D and respiratory tract infections were mostly observational in nature. Those that were RCTs used variable doses of vitamin D, had variable baseline 25(OH)D levels, and employed various methods to monitor ARTI symptoms/incidence.^5-8 This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with supplementation using vitamin D₃ or D₂ that used individual participant-level data, which gives a more accurate estimate of outcomes when compared with traditional meta-analyses.

CAVEATS

Only the most deficient benefit?

Vitamin D supplementation was safe and protected against ARTIs overall, but the greatest effect was noted in those who were most severely vitamin D deficient (those with circulating 25(OH)D levels < 10 ng/mL [NNT, 4] and those with circulating 25(OH)D levels 10-28 ng/mL [NNT, 15]). There was no demonstrable effect once circulating 25(OH)D levels reached 30 ng/mL.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Breaking tradition

The study found that both daily and weekly doses of vitamin D were effective in reducing the incidence of ARTIs. However, the doses studied were much lower than those commonly used (10,000 to 50,000 IU bolus), which were ineffective in reducing ARTIs in this meta-analysis. Changing from bolus dosing may prove challenging, as it is an ingrained practice for many providers.

In addition, the authors of the study suggest that one way to provide this level of vitamin D is through food fortification. But this method is often complicated by emotional and/or political issues that could thwart implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[4]:230-231).

 

A new report by members of the Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication has called for ending malaria in Africa within a generation, specifically aiming at the year 2050.

Courtesy NIAID

The Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication is a joint endeavor between The Lancet and the University of California, San Francisco, and was convened in 2017 to consider the feasibility and affordability of malaria eradication, as well as to identify priority actions for the achievement of the goal. Eradication was considered “a necessary one given the never-ending struggle against drug and insecticide resistance and the social and economic costs associated with a failure to eradicate.”

Between 2000 and 2017, the worldwide annual incidence of malaria declined by 36%, and the annual death rate declined by 60%, according to the report. In 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates proposed that controlling malaria was not enough and complete eradication was the only scientifically and ethically defensible objective. This goal was adopted by the World Health Organization and other interested parties, and by 2015, global strategies and a potential timeline for eradication were developed.

“Global progress has stalled since 2015 and the malaria community is now at a critical moment, faced with a decision to either temper its ambitions as it did in 1969 or recommit to an eradication goal,” according to the report.

In the report, the authors used new modeling analysis to estimate plausible scenarios for the distribution and intensity of malaria in 2030 and 2050. Socioeconomic and environmental trends, together with enhanced access to high-quality diagnosis, treatment, and vector control, could lead to a “world largely free of malaria” by 2050, but with pockets of low-level transmission persisting across a belt of Africa.

Current statistics lend weight to the promise of eventual eradication, according to the report.

Between 2000 and 2017, 20 countries – constituting about one-fifth of the 106 malaria-endemic countries in 2000 – eliminated malaria transmission within their borders, reporting zero indigenous malaria cases for at least 1 year. However, this was counterbalanced by the fact that between 2015 and 2017, 55 countries had an increase in cases, and 38 countries had an increase in deaths.

“The good news is that 38 countries had incidences of fewer than ten cases per 1,000 population in 2017, with 25 countries reporting fewer than one case per 1,000 population. The same 38 countries reported just 5% of total malaria deaths. Nearly all of these low-burden countries are actively working towards national and regional elimination goals of 2030 or earlier,” according to the report.

The analysis undertaken for the report consisted of the following four steps:

1. Development of a machine-learning model to capture associations between malaria endemicity data and a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental geospatial covariates.

2. Mapping of covariate estimates to the years 2030 and 2050 on the basis of projected global trends.

3. Application of the associations learned in the first step to projected covariates generated in the second step to estimate the possible future global landscape of malaria endemicity.

4. Use of a mathematical transmission model to explore the potential effect of differing levels of malaria interventions.

 

The report indicates that an annual spending of $6 billion or more is required, while the current global expenditure is approximately $4.3 billion. An additional investment of $2 billion per year is necessary, with a quarter of the funds coming from increased development assistance from external donors and the rest from government health spending in malaria-endemic countries, according to the report.

However, other areas of concern remain, including the current lack of effective and widely deployable outdoor biting technologies, though these are expected to be available within the next decade, according to the report.

In terms of the modeling used in the report, the authors noted that past performance does not “capture the effect of mass drug administration or mass chemoprevention because these interventions are either relatively new or have yet to be applied widely. These underestimates might be counteracted by the absence of drug or insecticide resistance from our projections,which result in overly optimistic estimates for the continued efficacy of current tools.”

The commission was launched in October 2017 by the Global Health Group at the University of California, San Francisco. The commission built on the 2010 Lancet Malaria Elimination Series, “which evaluated the operational, technical, and financial requirements for malaria elimination and helped shape and build early support for the eradication agenda,” according to the report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Feachem RGA et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31139-0.


 

 

A new report by members of the Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication has called for ending malaria in Africa within a generation, specifically aiming at the year 2050.

Courtesy NIAID

The Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication is a joint endeavor between The Lancet and the University of California, San Francisco, and was convened in 2017 to consider the feasibility and affordability of malaria eradication, as well as to identify priority actions for the achievement of the goal. Eradication was considered “a necessary one given the never-ending struggle against drug and insecticide resistance and the social and economic costs associated with a failure to eradicate.”

Between 2000 and 2017, the worldwide annual incidence of malaria declined by 36%, and the annual death rate declined by 60%, according to the report. In 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates proposed that controlling malaria was not enough and complete eradication was the only scientifically and ethically defensible objective. This goal was adopted by the World Health Organization and other interested parties, and by 2015, global strategies and a potential timeline for eradication were developed.

“Global progress has stalled since 2015 and the malaria community is now at a critical moment, faced with a decision to either temper its ambitions as it did in 1969 or recommit to an eradication goal,” according to the report.

In the report, the authors used new modeling analysis to estimate plausible scenarios for the distribution and intensity of malaria in 2030 and 2050. Socioeconomic and environmental trends, together with enhanced access to high-quality diagnosis, treatment, and vector control, could lead to a “world largely free of malaria” by 2050, but with pockets of low-level transmission persisting across a belt of Africa.

Current statistics lend weight to the promise of eventual eradication, according to the report.

Between 2000 and 2017, 20 countries – constituting about one-fifth of the 106 malaria-endemic countries in 2000 – eliminated malaria transmission within their borders, reporting zero indigenous malaria cases for at least 1 year. However, this was counterbalanced by the fact that between 2015 and 2017, 55 countries had an increase in cases, and 38 countries had an increase in deaths.

“The good news is that 38 countries had incidences of fewer than ten cases per 1,000 population in 2017, with 25 countries reporting fewer than one case per 1,000 population. The same 38 countries reported just 5% of total malaria deaths. Nearly all of these low-burden countries are actively working towards national and regional elimination goals of 2030 or earlier,” according to the report.

The analysis undertaken for the report consisted of the following four steps:

1. Development of a machine-learning model to capture associations between malaria endemicity data and a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental geospatial covariates.

2. Mapping of covariate estimates to the years 2030 and 2050 on the basis of projected global trends.

3. Application of the associations learned in the first step to projected covariates generated in the second step to estimate the possible future global landscape of malaria endemicity.

4. Use of a mathematical transmission model to explore the potential effect of differing levels of malaria interventions.

 

The report indicates that an annual spending of $6 billion or more is required, while the current global expenditure is approximately $4.3 billion. An additional investment of $2 billion per year is necessary, with a quarter of the funds coming from increased development assistance from external donors and the rest from government health spending in malaria-endemic countries, according to the report.

However, other areas of concern remain, including the current lack of effective and widely deployable outdoor biting technologies, though these are expected to be available within the next decade, according to the report.

In terms of the modeling used in the report, the authors noted that past performance does not “capture the effect of mass drug administration or mass chemoprevention because these interventions are either relatively new or have yet to be applied widely. These underestimates might be counteracted by the absence of drug or insecticide resistance from our projections,which result in overly optimistic estimates for the continued efficacy of current tools.”

The commission was launched in October 2017 by the Global Health Group at the University of California, San Francisco. The commission built on the 2010 Lancet Malaria Elimination Series, “which evaluated the operational, technical, and financial requirements for malaria elimination and helped shape and build early support for the eradication agenda,” according to the report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Feachem RGA et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31139-0.


 

 

A new report by members of the Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication has called for ending malaria in Africa within a generation, specifically aiming at the year 2050.

Courtesy NIAID

The Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication is a joint endeavor between The Lancet and the University of California, San Francisco, and was convened in 2017 to consider the feasibility and affordability of malaria eradication, as well as to identify priority actions for the achievement of the goal. Eradication was considered “a necessary one given the never-ending struggle against drug and insecticide resistance and the social and economic costs associated with a failure to eradicate.”

Between 2000 and 2017, the worldwide annual incidence of malaria declined by 36%, and the annual death rate declined by 60%, according to the report. In 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates proposed that controlling malaria was not enough and complete eradication was the only scientifically and ethically defensible objective. This goal was adopted by the World Health Organization and other interested parties, and by 2015, global strategies and a potential timeline for eradication were developed.

“Global progress has stalled since 2015 and the malaria community is now at a critical moment, faced with a decision to either temper its ambitions as it did in 1969 or recommit to an eradication goal,” according to the report.

In the report, the authors used new modeling analysis to estimate plausible scenarios for the distribution and intensity of malaria in 2030 and 2050. Socioeconomic and environmental trends, together with enhanced access to high-quality diagnosis, treatment, and vector control, could lead to a “world largely free of malaria” by 2050, but with pockets of low-level transmission persisting across a belt of Africa.

Current statistics lend weight to the promise of eventual eradication, according to the report.

Between 2000 and 2017, 20 countries – constituting about one-fifth of the 106 malaria-endemic countries in 2000 – eliminated malaria transmission within their borders, reporting zero indigenous malaria cases for at least 1 year. However, this was counterbalanced by the fact that between 2015 and 2017, 55 countries had an increase in cases, and 38 countries had an increase in deaths.

“The good news is that 38 countries had incidences of fewer than ten cases per 1,000 population in 2017, with 25 countries reporting fewer than one case per 1,000 population. The same 38 countries reported just 5% of total malaria deaths. Nearly all of these low-burden countries are actively working towards national and regional elimination goals of 2030 or earlier,” according to the report.

The analysis undertaken for the report consisted of the following four steps:

1. Development of a machine-learning model to capture associations between malaria endemicity data and a wide range of socioeconomic and environmental geospatial covariates.

2. Mapping of covariate estimates to the years 2030 and 2050 on the basis of projected global trends.

3. Application of the associations learned in the first step to projected covariates generated in the second step to estimate the possible future global landscape of malaria endemicity.

4. Use of a mathematical transmission model to explore the potential effect of differing levels of malaria interventions.

 

The report indicates that an annual spending of $6 billion or more is required, while the current global expenditure is approximately $4.3 billion. An additional investment of $2 billion per year is necessary, with a quarter of the funds coming from increased development assistance from external donors and the rest from government health spending in malaria-endemic countries, according to the report.

However, other areas of concern remain, including the current lack of effective and widely deployable outdoor biting technologies, though these are expected to be available within the next decade, according to the report.

In terms of the modeling used in the report, the authors noted that past performance does not “capture the effect of mass drug administration or mass chemoprevention because these interventions are either relatively new or have yet to be applied widely. These underestimates might be counteracted by the absence of drug or insecticide resistance from our projections,which result in overly optimistic estimates for the continued efficacy of current tools.”

The commission was launched in October 2017 by the Global Health Group at the University of California, San Francisco. The commission built on the 2010 Lancet Malaria Elimination Series, “which evaluated the operational, technical, and financial requirements for malaria elimination and helped shape and build early support for the eradication agenda,” according to the report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Feachem RGA et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31139-0.


 

Background: HAIs are key drivers of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a point-prevalence survey that revealed an HAI in 4% of hospitalized patients. The most common infections included pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and surgical-site infections. Over time, efforts in patient safety and quality have expanded to reduce the rate of HAIs. This same survey was repeated in 2015 to assess for improvements.

Study design: Point-prevalence survey.

Setting: A collection of 199 Emerging Infection Program hospitals in 10 states.

Synopsis: Of 12,299 patients surveyed, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-3.5%) were found to have at least one HAI. This was a statistically significant reduction compared to the prevalence of 4% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) found in the 2011 study. Approximately 75% of patients were on a medical ward, and 15% of patients were in the ICU. The age and sex of patients were similar to those of patients in the 2011 study.

The reduction in HAIs was primarily driven by a reduction in surgical-site infections and urinary tract infections. There was no reduction in the prevalence of health care–associated pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or mortality. Consequently, this emphasizes the necessity of further work in these domains.

Bottom line: The overall prevalence of HAIs has decreased, but further quality improvement work is needed in order to expand this reduction to health care–associated pneumonia, C. difficile infection, and mortality from HAIs.

Citation: Magill SS et al. Changes in prevalence of heath care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732-44.

Dr. McIntyre is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Background: HAIs are key drivers of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a point-prevalence survey that revealed an HAI in 4% of hospitalized patients. The most common infections included pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and surgical-site infections. Over time, efforts in patient safety and quality have expanded to reduce the rate of HAIs. This same survey was repeated in 2015 to assess for improvements.

Study design: Point-prevalence survey.

Setting: A collection of 199 Emerging Infection Program hospitals in 10 states.

Synopsis: Of 12,299 patients surveyed, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-3.5%) were found to have at least one HAI. This was a statistically significant reduction compared to the prevalence of 4% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) found in the 2011 study. Approximately 75% of patients were on a medical ward, and 15% of patients were in the ICU. The age and sex of patients were similar to those of patients in the 2011 study.

The reduction in HAIs was primarily driven by a reduction in surgical-site infections and urinary tract infections. There was no reduction in the prevalence of health care–associated pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or mortality. Consequently, this emphasizes the necessity of further work in these domains.

Bottom line: The overall prevalence of HAIs has decreased, but further quality improvement work is needed in order to expand this reduction to health care–associated pneumonia, C. difficile infection, and mortality from HAIs.

Citation: Magill SS et al. Changes in prevalence of heath care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732-44.

Dr. McIntyre is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Background: HAIs are key drivers of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a point-prevalence survey that revealed an HAI in 4% of hospitalized patients. The most common infections included pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and surgical-site infections. Over time, efforts in patient safety and quality have expanded to reduce the rate of HAIs. This same survey was repeated in 2015 to assess for improvements.

Study design: Point-prevalence survey.

Setting: A collection of 199 Emerging Infection Program hospitals in 10 states.

Synopsis: Of 12,299 patients surveyed, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-3.5%) were found to have at least one HAI. This was a statistically significant reduction compared to the prevalence of 4% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) found in the 2011 study. Approximately 75% of patients were on a medical ward, and 15% of patients were in the ICU. The age and sex of patients were similar to those of patients in the 2011 study.

The reduction in HAIs was primarily driven by a reduction in surgical-site infections and urinary tract infections. There was no reduction in the prevalence of health care–associated pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or mortality. Consequently, this emphasizes the necessity of further work in these domains.

Bottom line: The overall prevalence of HAIs has decreased, but further quality improvement work is needed in order to expand this reduction to health care–associated pneumonia, C. difficile infection, and mortality from HAIs.

Citation: Magill SS et al. Changes in prevalence of heath care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732-44.

Dr. McIntyre is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Women who have tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis have an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis or who have not been tested for the bacterium, according to a retrospective cohort study.

CDC/Dr. E. Arum; Dr. N. Jacobs

The risk of PID increases with repeat chlamydial infections, and the use of antibiotics that are effective against C. trachomatis does not decrease the risk of subsequent PID, the researchers reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Prior studies have yielded different estimates of the risk of reproductive complications after chlamydia infection, said Casper den Heijer, MD, PhD, a researcher at Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. To assess the risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous C. trachomatis diagnosis, Dr. den Heijer and coauthors conducted a retrospective study of women aged 12-25 years at baseline in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Their analysis included data from women living in England between 2000 and 2013. The investigators used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from 857,324 women with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Patients’ mean age at baseline was 15 years. In all, the participants had 8,346 occurrences of PID, 2,484 occurrences of ectopic pregnancy, and 2,066 occurrences of female infertility.

For PID, incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.1 among women untested for C. trachomatis, 1.4 among women who tested negative, and 5.4 among women who tested positive. For ectopic pregnancy, the incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.4 for negatively tested women, and 1.2 for positively tested women. Infertility incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.3 for negatively tested women, and 0.9 for positively tested women.

Compared with women who tested negative for C. trachomatis, women who tested positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87), and female infertility (aHR, 1.85). Untested women had a lower risk for PID, compared with women who tested negative (aHR, 0.57).

C. trachomatis–effective antibiotic use was associated with higher PID risk, and that risk increased as the women used more of the antibiotic prescriptions, Dr. den Heijer and associates said. This occurred in all three groups of women. A possible explanation for this association between the antibiotics and higher PID risk could be that PID can be caused by other infectious diseases that could be treated with C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

While the study relied on primary care data, genitourinary medicine clinics diagnose and treat “a sizable proportion” of sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom, the authors noted. This limitation means that the study underestimates the number of C. trachomatis diagnoses in the cohort, they said.

Nonetheless, “Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of [C. trachomatis] and show the need for adequate public health interventions,” Dr. den Heijer and associates concluded.

 

Iris Krishna, MD, said in an interview, “This is a well-designed population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating the incidence of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and female infertility amongst more than 850,000 women in a primary care setting with a previous diagnosis of C. trachomatis, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis and women who have not been tested for C. trachomatis. This study also evaluated the impact of antibiotic use on PID.”

Dr. Krishna, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, continued, “This study demonstrates an association between C. trachomatis infection and adverse reproductive health outcomes. It highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment of C. trachomatis to reduce the risk of both short- and long-term reproductive health complications, as well as highlighting the importance of preventing recurrent C. trachomatis infections. It also emphasizes the importance of targeted screening for high-risk groups and appropriate follow-up to ensure that optimal antibiotic treatment is provided, especially amongst women who have recently used C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

“The finding of progression to PID despite C. trachomatis-effective antibiotic use indicates a more complex relationship where perhaps host immunological factors or effects of antibiotics on the vaginal microbiome may play a role and requires further study,” concluded Dr. Krishna. She was not involved in the current study, and was asked to comment on the findings.

The study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. den Heijer had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Krishna said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: den Heijer CDJ et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz429.

Women who have tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis have an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis or who have not been tested for the bacterium, according to a retrospective cohort study.

CDC/Dr. E. Arum; Dr. N. Jacobs

The risk of PID increases with repeat chlamydial infections, and the use of antibiotics that are effective against C. trachomatis does not decrease the risk of subsequent PID, the researchers reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Prior studies have yielded different estimates of the risk of reproductive complications after chlamydia infection, said Casper den Heijer, MD, PhD, a researcher at Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. To assess the risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous C. trachomatis diagnosis, Dr. den Heijer and coauthors conducted a retrospective study of women aged 12-25 years at baseline in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Their analysis included data from women living in England between 2000 and 2013. The investigators used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from 857,324 women with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Patients’ mean age at baseline was 15 years. In all, the participants had 8,346 occurrences of PID, 2,484 occurrences of ectopic pregnancy, and 2,066 occurrences of female infertility.

For PID, incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.1 among women untested for C. trachomatis, 1.4 among women who tested negative, and 5.4 among women who tested positive. For ectopic pregnancy, the incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.4 for negatively tested women, and 1.2 for positively tested women. Infertility incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.3 for negatively tested women, and 0.9 for positively tested women.

Compared with women who tested negative for C. trachomatis, women who tested positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87), and female infertility (aHR, 1.85). Untested women had a lower risk for PID, compared with women who tested negative (aHR, 0.57).

C. trachomatis–effective antibiotic use was associated with higher PID risk, and that risk increased as the women used more of the antibiotic prescriptions, Dr. den Heijer and associates said. This occurred in all three groups of women. A possible explanation for this association between the antibiotics and higher PID risk could be that PID can be caused by other infectious diseases that could be treated with C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

While the study relied on primary care data, genitourinary medicine clinics diagnose and treat “a sizable proportion” of sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom, the authors noted. This limitation means that the study underestimates the number of C. trachomatis diagnoses in the cohort, they said.

Nonetheless, “Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of [C. trachomatis] and show the need for adequate public health interventions,” Dr. den Heijer and associates concluded.

 

Iris Krishna, MD, said in an interview, “This is a well-designed population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating the incidence of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and female infertility amongst more than 850,000 women in a primary care setting with a previous diagnosis of C. trachomatis, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis and women who have not been tested for C. trachomatis. This study also evaluated the impact of antibiotic use on PID.”

Dr. Krishna, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, continued, “This study demonstrates an association between C. trachomatis infection and adverse reproductive health outcomes. It highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment of C. trachomatis to reduce the risk of both short- and long-term reproductive health complications, as well as highlighting the importance of preventing recurrent C. trachomatis infections. It also emphasizes the importance of targeted screening for high-risk groups and appropriate follow-up to ensure that optimal antibiotic treatment is provided, especially amongst women who have recently used C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

“The finding of progression to PID despite C. trachomatis-effective antibiotic use indicates a more complex relationship where perhaps host immunological factors or effects of antibiotics on the vaginal microbiome may play a role and requires further study,” concluded Dr. Krishna. She was not involved in the current study, and was asked to comment on the findings.

The study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. den Heijer had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Krishna said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: den Heijer CDJ et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz429.

Women who have tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis have an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis or who have not been tested for the bacterium, according to a retrospective cohort study.

CDC/Dr. E. Arum; Dr. N. Jacobs

The risk of PID increases with repeat chlamydial infections, and the use of antibiotics that are effective against C. trachomatis does not decrease the risk of subsequent PID, the researchers reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Prior studies have yielded different estimates of the risk of reproductive complications after chlamydia infection, said Casper den Heijer, MD, PhD, a researcher at Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. To assess the risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous C. trachomatis diagnosis, Dr. den Heijer and coauthors conducted a retrospective study of women aged 12-25 years at baseline in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Their analysis included data from women living in England between 2000 and 2013. The investigators used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from 857,324 women with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Patients’ mean age at baseline was 15 years. In all, the participants had 8,346 occurrences of PID, 2,484 occurrences of ectopic pregnancy, and 2,066 occurrences of female infertility.

For PID, incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.1 among women untested for C. trachomatis, 1.4 among women who tested negative, and 5.4 among women who tested positive. For ectopic pregnancy, the incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.4 for negatively tested women, and 1.2 for positively tested women. Infertility incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.3 for negatively tested women, and 0.9 for positively tested women.

Compared with women who tested negative for C. trachomatis, women who tested positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87), and female infertility (aHR, 1.85). Untested women had a lower risk for PID, compared with women who tested negative (aHR, 0.57).

C. trachomatis–effective antibiotic use was associated with higher PID risk, and that risk increased as the women used more of the antibiotic prescriptions, Dr. den Heijer and associates said. This occurred in all three groups of women. A possible explanation for this association between the antibiotics and higher PID risk could be that PID can be caused by other infectious diseases that could be treated with C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

While the study relied on primary care data, genitourinary medicine clinics diagnose and treat “a sizable proportion” of sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom, the authors noted. This limitation means that the study underestimates the number of C. trachomatis diagnoses in the cohort, they said.

Nonetheless, “Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of [C. trachomatis] and show the need for adequate public health interventions,” Dr. den Heijer and associates concluded.

 

Iris Krishna, MD, said in an interview, “This is a well-designed population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating the incidence of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and female infertility amongst more than 850,000 women in a primary care setting with a previous diagnosis of C. trachomatis, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis and women who have not been tested for C. trachomatis. This study also evaluated the impact of antibiotic use on PID.”

Dr. Krishna, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, continued, “This study demonstrates an association between C. trachomatis infection and adverse reproductive health outcomes. It highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment of C. trachomatis to reduce the risk of both short- and long-term reproductive health complications, as well as highlighting the importance of preventing recurrent C. trachomatis infections. It also emphasizes the importance of targeted screening for high-risk groups and appropriate follow-up to ensure that optimal antibiotic treatment is provided, especially amongst women who have recently used C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

“The finding of progression to PID despite C. trachomatis-effective antibiotic use indicates a more complex relationship where perhaps host immunological factors or effects of antibiotics on the vaginal microbiome may play a role and requires further study,” concluded Dr. Krishna. She was not involved in the current study, and was asked to comment on the findings.

The study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. den Heijer had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Krishna said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: den Heijer CDJ et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz429.

CASE

Barry S, a 45-year-old man with a new diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, recently started induction chemotherapy. He has struggled with nausea, profound gustatory changes, and poor appetite; various antiemetics have provided only minimal relief. He tells you that he is hesitant to try “yet another pill” but has heard and read that marijuana (genus Cannabis) is used to alleviate disruptive chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. He asks if this is a treatment you’d recommend for him.

As Mr. S’s physician, how do you respond?

Understandably, some family physicians are hesitant to recommend an unregulated, federally illegal substance characterized by conflicting or absent evidence of safety and effectiveness.¹ Nevertheless, throughout history and in the current court of public opinion, medical Cannabis has overwhelming support,² leading to legalization in most of the United States.

As with many traditionally accepted therapies (whether they are or are not supported by substantial evidence), physicians are expected to provide individualized guidance regarding minimizing risk and maximizing benefit of the therapeutic use of Cannabis. The rapidly growing scientific and commercial fields of medical Cannabis guarantee that information on this topic will constantly be changing—and will often be contradictory. In this article, we review the most common concerns about medical Cannabis and provide up-to-date evidence on its use.

The pharmacology of cannabis

Cannabis sativa was among the earliest plants cultivated by man, with the first evidence of its use in China, approximately 4000 BC, to make twine and rope from its fibers.³ Records of medicinal Cannabis date back to the world’s oldest pharmacopoeia, a written summary of what was known about herbal medicine through the late 16th century.⁴

Common forms of plant-based Cannabis include leaf that is smoked or vaporized, oral tincture, pill, and oil concentrate that can be vaporized.

The 2 principal species of Cannabis are sativa and indica. There is no good medical evidence to separate the impacts of either strain; however, a staggering amount of lay information exists about the reported differing effects of each strain.⁵

Chemical constituents. Phytocannabinoids derived from C sativa are the plant’s best-known proteins, constituting a complex lipid-signaling network involved in numerous physiological processes. There are more than 100 known phytocannabinoids, the most well-recognized being Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Additional sources of cannabinoids include endogenous cannabinoids, or endocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids.

The endocannabinoid system, comprising cannabinoid receptors, endocannabinoids, and their specific enzymes, is a potential therapeutic target for a variety of pathologic processes.^6,7 The 2 most well-studied targets for cannabinoids in the human body are the cannabinoid receptors CB₁ and CB₂, found throughout the body: CB₁, predominantly in the central and peripheral nervous system, and CB₂ in a more limited distribution in the immune and hematopoietic systems. Other pathways activated or antagonized by THC and CBD exist, but are less well-mapped than CB₁ and CB₂.

[polldaddy:10402702]

Continue to: Botanical or synthetic?

 

Botanical or synthetic? It is important to distinguish between synthetic and plant-based cannabinoids, for you and your patients' benefit. Pharmaceutical (synthetic) THC is just that: THC alone. Whole-plant Cannabis, on the other hand, has hundreds of additional chemicals—most notably, phytocannabinoids and terpenoids. Data on the mechanisms of action and interactions of these additional chemicals are limited.

Although clinical trials have been undertaken with synthetic cannabinoids, there is increasing understanding and interest in the medical community of whole-plant Cannabis as a distinct entity. For example, nabiximols is a novel development in plant-based Cannabis products. Available as an oromucosal spray, a dose provides THC and CBD at 2.7 mg/100 mcL. Nabiximols is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but is widely used in Canada and Europe.

PHOTO: ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ 2019; PHOTO MANIPULATION: JOHN DENAPOLI

A third class of Cannabis comprises nonregulated synthetic cannabinoids that have no medically recognized benefit. They are solely a drug of abuse; common names include “K2” and “Spice.” These cannabinoids are outside of the scope of our discussion, but patients and providers should be aware of these cannabinoids because they are street-available. Unsuspecting patients might not know the difference between abusive and therapeutic formulations.⁸

Delivery and strength. Common forms of plant-based Cannabis include leaf that is smoked or vaporized, oral tincture, pill, and oil concentrate that can be vaporized. All forms come in a range of THC:CBD ratios—from as high as 90% THC content to 0% THC and all CBD-based content. Patients who are naïve to Cannabis might be concerned about formulations with a high THC concentration because of the psychoactive effects of this substance. Given the minimal CNS activity of CBD, a tolerable therapeutic starting point often is a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1, which contains a lower percentage of THC.⁴

Physiologic effects. THC is a partial agonist of CB₁ and CB₂ receptors; CBD functions as an antagonist at both receptors. The primary effects of THC result from activation of CB₁ receptors, which exist in various areas of the cerebrum and cerebellum, as well as in the spinal cord.⁷ THC exerts its psychotropic effects at CB₁ sites in the central nervous system; CBD can antagonize these THC effects at CB₁ receptors. CBD also has anti-inflammatory and other effects that are mediated through peripherally distributed CB₂ receptors.⁹

Continue to: THC has tremendously...

 

A tolerable therapeutic starting point is a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1.

THC has tremendously complex capacity for activation and inhibition within various neuronal circuits, resulting in effects on mood, appetite, and movement.^1,7 Adverse effects associated with Cannabis are wide-ranging: Most commonly, nausea, drowsiness, fatigue, dry mouth, and dizziness are reported alongside cognitive effects. Rarely, tachycardia, hypotension, hyperemesis, and depression can be seen.

Clinical implications and indications

Clinical indications for legal medical Cannabis vary by state; typically, indications include human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, severe and chronic pain, spasticity from neurodegenerative disorders, and irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease, as well as a wide range of less-universal diagnoses. A patient may have a so-called qualifying diagnosis (ie, having the potential to allow the patient to be certified to purchase and use Cannabis) in one state but not have the same standing in a neighboring state, posing a complex legal issue. Given the significant complexities of performing medical research with plant-based Cannabis in the United States, little research has been done. The result? Policymakers are grappling with questions that only scientific research can answer:

• For which conditions does Cannabis provide medicinal benefit equal to or superior to alternatives?
• What are the appropriate dosages (or CBD:THC ratios), formulations (plant-derived or synthetic), and routes of administration (smoked, ingested, or topical) for various conditions?

Bird’s-eye view of clinical research. A meta-analysis of isolated synthetic and plant-based cannabinoids for medical use was published in 2015.¹⁰ The analysis included more than 6000 patients in 79 trials, most of which assessed whether dronabinol or nabilone (both synthetic isolates) were effective compared to placebo or alternative non-Cannabis-based therapy. The studies examined chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, appetite stimulation in HIV and AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, and psychosis.

Twenty-eight studies assessed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. All of these studies indicated a greater benefit from cannabinoids than from alternative antiemetic regimens and placebo; however, that finding did not reach statistical significance across all studies.

There was moderate evidence to suggest the use of Cannabis for neuropathic and nonneuropathic cancer-related pain. However, there is an increased short-term risk of adverse events with synthetic isolates dronabinol (when used for pain) and nabilone (when used for nausea and vomiting).

Continue to: The primary conclusion...

 

The primary conclusion of the meta-analysis is that further study is required because little evidence exists on the effects and the adverse events of plant-based Cannabis.

HIV infection. Data on Cannabis for the treatment of refractory neuropathy and appetite stimulation in HIV infection is mixed.^10,11 Smoked Cannabis for medically refractory neuropathy was examined in several trials:

• In a randomized crossover trial, researchers found statistically significant subjective improvement in neuropathic pain, with minimal intolerable adverse effects, in the 28 HIV-infected participants who completed the trial.¹¹
• In another study,Cannabis ingested in various forms resulted in appetite stimulation in late-stage HIV infection but did not produce statistically significant weight gain.¹⁰

Pediatric epilepsy. Research on pediatric patients who have epilepsy characterized by refractory seizures has shown that the impact of Cannabis on their disease is promising. Specifically, CBD has shown tremendous potential impact: Patients experienced a statistically significant reduction in the number of seizures.⁹ In 2018, the FDA approved the first plant-based derivative of Cannabis: an oral cannabidiol (marketed as Epidiolex [Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.]) for the treatment of intractable seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, rare and severe forms of epilepsy. Epidiolex is the first FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from marijuana.

CASE

Mr. S’s diagnosis of cancer is broadly included in the list of Cannabis-qualifying illnesses in all 34 states that certify patients for medical Cannabis. He qualifies both because (1) he is a cancer patient and (2) he has not found relief from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with several targeted therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine-receptor antagonists, steroids, and antipsychotics. Evidence supports CB₁ and CB₂ as potential targets for antiemetic treatment.

Research suggests that the use of Cannabis for pediatric patients with refractory seizures is promising.

Given Mr. S’s consequent anorexia, his frustration with taking an increasing number of medications, and possible adverse effects of additional therapy, Cannabis is a reasonable course of action to treat nausea and vomiting. He would be able to use oral tincture or vaporization of oil to further limit his pill burden—likely, with a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1 or similar.

Continue to: Based on recent observational data...

 

Based on recent observational data from New York Cannabis dispensaries, cancer patients pursing Cannabis to treat chemotherapy-induced symptoms report that (1) either products with a high concentration of THC or products that contain THC and CBD in a 1:1 ratio are most effective and (2) products in 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD are most tolerable.

A legal system at oddsover the status of medical Cannabis

The core legal issue underlying medical Cannabis is a contradiction between federal and state laws.

At the federal level. The federal government regulates the lawful production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).¹² The CSA is the basis for categorizing certain plants, drugs, and chemicals into 5 schedules, based on the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.¹³ Under the CSA, marijuana (along with substances such as heroin and methamphetamine) is categorized as Schedule I¹⁴; ie, the substance

• has high potential for abuse,
• has no accepted therapeutic medical use in the United States, and
• lacks acceptable safety for use under medical supervision.

Despite waxing and waning efforts to protect states from federal prosecution, any use of a Schedule-1 substance violates federal law.¹⁵

Physicians are protected from prosecution or revocation of their prescriptive authority based on their First Amendment right to discuss medical marijuana with patients.

In June 2018, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill designed to amend the CSA and guarantee the rights of states and territories to self-determine marijuana regulation. The bill established a so-called STATES (Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States) Act that “amends the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) so that—as states and tribes comply with a few basic protections—its provisions no longer apply to any person acting in compliance with state or tribal laws relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marijuana.”¹⁵

Continue to: The bill was referred to the Senate...

 

The bill was referred to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees but, ultimately, the STATES Act was blocked from debate in 2018.

On April 4, 2019, the Act was reintroduced in the House (H.R. 2093) and Senate (S. 1028) of the 116th Congress. Although there is bipartisan support for this bill, the timeline for moving it forward is unclear.^16,17

At the state level. Thirty-four states have comprehensive public medical marijuana and Cannabis programs. The National Conference of State Legislatures¹⁸ (www.ncsl.org) designates a program “comprehensive” if it

• includes protection from criminal penalties for using marijuana for a medical purpose,
• allows access to marijuana through home cultivation, dispensaries, or other system,
• permits a variety of strains, including those more potent than what is labeled “low-THC,” and
• allows smoking or vaporization of marijuana products, plant-based material, or extract.

An additional 14 states allow for “low-THC, high-CBD” products for medical reasons, in limited situations, or as a legal defense. Regulation in these states varies widely, however: Some states allow industrialized hemp products only; others do not provide for any in-state production.¹⁸

Last, many states have some form of so-called “affirmative-defense” statutes that allow people charged with marijuana possession to mention use of marijuana for medical purposes as a possible defense.

Continue to: Physician shield

 

Physician shield. Despite inconsistent and evolving state and federal laws, physicians are protected, based on the Conant v Walters decision, from prosecution or revocation of their prescriptive authority for the professional “recommendation” of the use of medical marijuana.¹⁹ In 2002, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the permanent injunction, based on a physician’s First Amendment right to discuss medical marijuana with patients.

CASE

Mr. S is amenable to trial of Cannabis to relieve nausea and anorexia. He asks you if he is allowed to use Cannabis at work, were he to return to an office-based desk job—even part-time—during treatment for cancer.

How would you answer Mr. S? Patients are legally protected from workplace penalties and dismissal for using and consuming Cannabis in states with a medical Cannabis law (including the state in which Mr. S resides). However, all employers have some variability in corporate policy, especially if a person works in a federally supported or regulated occupation. It’s always helpful to advise patients who will be using medical Cannabis to be proactive and speak with a human resources or employee health department staff member before beginning a course of medical Cannabis. Additionally, Cannabis with any amount of THC has the ability to alter focus, concentration, and perceptions of time. Thus, if a patient using medical Cannabis with THC asks about driving to work, he should be given the same advice one would offer about driving after consuming alcohol or ingesting opioids.

Common concerns

Ignorance of legal status. Theoretically, the Conant v Walters decision protects physicians from investigation for recommending medical Cannabis even in states where it is illegal. However, you should adhere closely to procedures set out by your state. The National Council of State Legislatures provides up-to-date information on each state’s procedures and programs,¹⁸ and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (www.asam.org) has established standards of professionalism for physicians who discuss medical Cannabis with patients (TABLE).²⁰

Exposure to smoke. Cannabis smoke carries many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke; furthermore, use of Cannabis and tobacco are highly correlated, confounding many population-based studies. The manner of inhalation of Cannabis can result in significantly higher levels of tar and carbon dioxide than with tobacco smoking. Because the effects of Cannabis last longer, however, people who smoke Cannabis may smoke it less often than tobacco smokers smoke tobacco.²¹

Continue to: Large cross-sectional...

 

Large cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have not found a link between Cannabis smoking and long-term pulmonary consequences, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.^22,23 The technology of Cannabis delivery systems has progressed far more rapidly than the clinical evidence for or against such technology.

Delayed onset of edible products and variation of THC concentration increase risk of overconsumption.

“Vaping” is an informal term for inhalation of aerosolized Cannabis components and water vapor. Vaporizers do not heat Cannabis to the point of combustion; therefore, they provide less exposure to smoke-related toxicants while providing similar time of onset.

Neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Data regarding the relationship between Cannabis use and psychiatric disorders are incompletely understood, in conflict, and related to cannabinoid type. Consider Pennsylvania’s addition of anxiety disorder as a “serious medical condition” covered under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act.²⁴ Although patients often report the use of medical Cannabis to treat anxiety,²⁵ panic attacks are often associated with Cannabis use.²⁶

While there is a clear association between Cannabis use and psychotic disorder, a causal link has yet to be unequivocally established. However, the rate of psychiatric hospitalization is increased in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia patients who use Cannabis heavily.²⁷

We recommend, therefore, that physicians screen patients for serious mental health concerns before recommending or certifying them to use medical Cannabis.

Continue to: Overconsumption of edibles

 

Overconsumption of edibles. Cannabis edibles (ie, food products infused with Cannabis extract) are distinct from inhaled Cannabis in regard to onset, duration, and potential for adverse effects. Cannabis edibles might be more popular than inhaled products among older medical Cannabis users.²⁸

Edible Cannabis has a reported onset of 1 to 3 hours (compared to 5-10 minutes with inhaled Cannabis) and a duration of effect of 6 to 8 hours (compared with 2-4 hours for inhaled products).²⁹ These qualities might render Cannabis edibles preferable to inhaled formulations for controlling chronic symptoms and conditions. However, delayed onset of edible products and wide variation in the concentration of THC also increase the risk of overconsumption, which can lead to overdose and self-limited Cannabis-induced psychosis. We recommend providing patient education about the effects of the physiologically active therapeutic compounds tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, to prevent overconsumption of high-THC products.³⁰

CASE

Mr. S returns to your office after a trial of Cannabis as vaporized oil and reports some relief of nausea and a mild increase in appetite, but no weight gain. He is concerned about overconsumption or overdose, and asks you what the risks of these problems are.

How should you counsel Mr. S? Explain that ingestion of Cannabis has a prolonged onset of action; vaporization has a more rapid onset of action; therefore, he could more easily self-regulate ingestion with the vehicle he has chosen. In states where edible Cannabis products are legal, education is necessary so that patients know how much of the edible to consume and how long they will wait to feel the full impact of the effects of THC.³⁰

Cannabis use disorder in the context of medical marijuana

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) incorporates general diagnostic features of a substance use disorder, including behavioral, cognitive, and physiologic symptoms such as cravings, tolerance, and withdrawal, in the setting of persistent use despite significant substance-related problems.³¹ Features of Cannabis withdrawal syndrome include irritability, anger or aggression, anxiety, depressed mood, restlessness, sleep difficulty, and decreased appetite or weight loss.³¹ Cannabis use disorder can develop in people who use medical Cannabis; however, physiologic symptoms of tolerance and withdrawal can also develop in the setting of appropriate medical use and do not, in isolation, represent CUD.

Continue to: A recent study...

 

A recent study considered nationwide cross-sectional survey data from the US National Survey of Drug Use and Health to examine the relationship between medical marijuana laws and CUD.³² Study findings did not show an increase in the prevalence of CUD or marijuana use among adults in states with a legalized medical marijuana program. Importantly, when researchers looked at marijuana use among adolescents and young adults, they found no increase in measured outcomes (eg, active [ie, past-month] marijuana use, heavy [> 300 d/yr] use, and a diagnosis of CUD) after medical marijuana laws were passed.³²

A paucity of pediatric data

Cannabis smoke carries many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.

The adolescent brain might be more vulnerable to the adverse long-term effects of Cannabis; there is potential significant harm associated with Cannabis in children and adolescence. However, accurate data concerning risk and benefit are limited.

The most recent policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reflects this paucity of data.³³ The AAP opposes the use of medical Cannabis outside regulation by the FDA, although the organization allows for consideration of compassionate use of medical Cannabis for children who have life-threatening or severely disabling conditions. The AAP does support (1) additional research into pharmaceutical cannabinoids and (2) changing Cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II to facilitate this process. Since the publication of the policy statement, Pediatrics, the official journal of the AAP, has published a review of medical cannabinoids and found (1) strong evidence for benefit in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and (2) accumulating evidence of benefit in epilepsy.³⁴

Recognized risk: Not supporting medical Cannabis

At press time, the CDC issued a statement on respiratory illnesses reported after use of e-cigarette products. To learn more, go to www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0830-statement-e-cigarette.html.

As with all medical decisions, the risks and benefits of certifying patients for medical Cannabis must be balanced against the risks and benefits of not doing so. The risks that accompany failure to certify a patient for medical marijuana fall into 3 categories:

Blocking access to a substance that has potential therapeutic benefit. More data regarding the potential benefits and risks of medical Cannabis will, undoubtedly, dispel some of the uncertainty regarding the decision to certify a patient for medical Cannabis. When you recommend medical Cannabis and certify patients for its use, you do so with the certainty that the Cannabis safety index (ie, risk of overdose or serious adverse effects) is exceedingly low.³⁵

Continue to: Limiting patients to other medications

 

Limiting patients to other medications that, potentially, carry a risk of more or greater harmful effects. An example is the decision to prescribe an opioid for chronic pain instead of certifying a patient for medical Cannabis. For certain other conditions, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, FDA-approved pharmaceuticals might have more reported serious adverse events and interactions than medical Cannabis.³⁶

 Resigning patients to obtain Cannabis from an illegal source.  This speaks to harm reduction and social justice, because obtaining Cannabis from an illegal source carries health and legal risks:

• Increased health risks result from lacing or cutting botanical or synthetic Cannabis products with potentially toxic substances. Cocaine, the rodenticide brodifacoum, methamphetamine, and phencyclidine are all known, or have been reported, to be added to botanical and synthetic Cannabis.³⁷
• Legal repercussions of Cannabis possession are disproportionately racially based, with a significantly higher arrest rate among people of color, even in states where medical Cannabis has been legalized.³⁸

CORRESPONDENCE
Lara Carson Weinstein, MD, MPH, DrPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, PA 19107; [email protected].

CASE

Barry S, a 45-year-old man with a new diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, recently started induction chemotherapy. He has struggled with nausea, profound gustatory changes, and poor appetite; various antiemetics have provided only minimal relief. He tells you that he is hesitant to try “yet another pill” but has heard and read that marijuana (genus Cannabis) is used to alleviate disruptive chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. He asks if this is a treatment you’d recommend for him.

As Mr. S’s physician, how do you respond?

Understandably, some family physicians are hesitant to recommend an unregulated, federally illegal substance characterized by conflicting or absent evidence of safety and effectiveness.¹ Nevertheless, throughout history and in the current court of public opinion, medical Cannabis has overwhelming support,² leading to legalization in most of the United States.

As with many traditionally accepted therapies (whether they are or are not supported by substantial evidence), physicians are expected to provide individualized guidance regarding minimizing risk and maximizing benefit of the therapeutic use of Cannabis. The rapidly growing scientific and commercial fields of medical Cannabis guarantee that information on this topic will constantly be changing—and will often be contradictory. In this article, we review the most common concerns about medical Cannabis and provide up-to-date evidence on its use.

The pharmacology of cannabis

Cannabis sativa was among the earliest plants cultivated by man, with the first evidence of its use in China, approximately 4000 BC, to make twine and rope from its fibers.³ Records of medicinal Cannabis date back to the world’s oldest pharmacopoeia, a written summary of what was known about herbal medicine through the late 16th century.⁴

Common forms of plant-based Cannabis include leaf that is smoked or vaporized, oral tincture, pill, and oil concentrate that can be vaporized.

The 2 principal species of Cannabis are sativa and indica. There is no good medical evidence to separate the impacts of either strain; however, a staggering amount of lay information exists about the reported differing effects of each strain.⁵

Chemical constituents. Phytocannabinoids derived from C sativa are the plant’s best-known proteins, constituting a complex lipid-signaling network involved in numerous physiological processes. There are more than 100 known phytocannabinoids, the most well-recognized being Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Additional sources of cannabinoids include endogenous cannabinoids, or endocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids.

The endocannabinoid system, comprising cannabinoid receptors, endocannabinoids, and their specific enzymes, is a potential therapeutic target for a variety of pathologic processes.^6,7 The 2 most well-studied targets for cannabinoids in the human body are the cannabinoid receptors CB₁ and CB₂, found throughout the body: CB₁, predominantly in the central and peripheral nervous system, and CB₂ in a more limited distribution in the immune and hematopoietic systems. Other pathways activated or antagonized by THC and CBD exist, but are less well-mapped than CB₁ and CB₂.

[polldaddy:10402702]

Continue to: Botanical or synthetic?

 

Botanical or synthetic? It is important to distinguish between synthetic and plant-based cannabinoids, for you and your patients' benefit. Pharmaceutical (synthetic) THC is just that: THC alone. Whole-plant Cannabis, on the other hand, has hundreds of additional chemicals—most notably, phytocannabinoids and terpenoids. Data on the mechanisms of action and interactions of these additional chemicals are limited.

Although clinical trials have been undertaken with synthetic cannabinoids, there is increasing understanding and interest in the medical community of whole-plant Cannabis as a distinct entity. For example, nabiximols is a novel development in plant-based Cannabis products. Available as an oromucosal spray, a dose provides THC and CBD at 2.7 mg/100 mcL. Nabiximols is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but is widely used in Canada and Europe.

PHOTO: ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ 2019; PHOTO MANIPULATION: JOHN DENAPOLI

A third class of Cannabis comprises nonregulated synthetic cannabinoids that have no medically recognized benefit. They are solely a drug of abuse; common names include “K2” and “Spice.” These cannabinoids are outside of the scope of our discussion, but patients and providers should be aware of these cannabinoids because they are street-available. Unsuspecting patients might not know the difference between abusive and therapeutic formulations.⁸

Delivery and strength. Common forms of plant-based Cannabis include leaf that is smoked or vaporized, oral tincture, pill, and oil concentrate that can be vaporized. All forms come in a range of THC:CBD ratios—from as high as 90% THC content to 0% THC and all CBD-based content. Patients who are naïve to Cannabis might be concerned about formulations with a high THC concentration because of the psychoactive effects of this substance. Given the minimal CNS activity of CBD, a tolerable therapeutic starting point often is a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1, which contains a lower percentage of THC.⁴

Physiologic effects. THC is a partial agonist of CB₁ and CB₂ receptors; CBD functions as an antagonist at both receptors. The primary effects of THC result from activation of CB₁ receptors, which exist in various areas of the cerebrum and cerebellum, as well as in the spinal cord.⁷ THC exerts its psychotropic effects at CB₁ sites in the central nervous system; CBD can antagonize these THC effects at CB₁ receptors. CBD also has anti-inflammatory and other effects that are mediated through peripherally distributed CB₂ receptors.⁹

Continue to: THC has tremendously...

 

A tolerable therapeutic starting point is a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1.

THC has tremendously complex capacity for activation and inhibition within various neuronal circuits, resulting in effects on mood, appetite, and movement.^1,7 Adverse effects associated with Cannabis are wide-ranging: Most commonly, nausea, drowsiness, fatigue, dry mouth, and dizziness are reported alongside cognitive effects. Rarely, tachycardia, hypotension, hyperemesis, and depression can be seen.

Clinical implications and indications

Clinical indications for legal medical Cannabis vary by state; typically, indications include human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, severe and chronic pain, spasticity from neurodegenerative disorders, and irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease, as well as a wide range of less-universal diagnoses. A patient may have a so-called qualifying diagnosis (ie, having the potential to allow the patient to be certified to purchase and use Cannabis) in one state but not have the same standing in a neighboring state, posing a complex legal issue. Given the significant complexities of performing medical research with plant-based Cannabis in the United States, little research has been done. The result? Policymakers are grappling with questions that only scientific research can answer:

• For which conditions does Cannabis provide medicinal benefit equal to or superior to alternatives?
• What are the appropriate dosages (or CBD:THC ratios), formulations (plant-derived or synthetic), and routes of administration (smoked, ingested, or topical) for various conditions?

Bird’s-eye view of clinical research. A meta-analysis of isolated synthetic and plant-based cannabinoids for medical use was published in 2015.¹⁰ The analysis included more than 6000 patients in 79 trials, most of which assessed whether dronabinol or nabilone (both synthetic isolates) were effective compared to placebo or alternative non-Cannabis-based therapy. The studies examined chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, appetite stimulation in HIV and AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, and psychosis.

Twenty-eight studies assessed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. All of these studies indicated a greater benefit from cannabinoids than from alternative antiemetic regimens and placebo; however, that finding did not reach statistical significance across all studies.

There was moderate evidence to suggest the use of Cannabis for neuropathic and nonneuropathic cancer-related pain. However, there is an increased short-term risk of adverse events with synthetic isolates dronabinol (when used for pain) and nabilone (when used for nausea and vomiting).

Continue to: The primary conclusion...

 

The primary conclusion of the meta-analysis is that further study is required because little evidence exists on the effects and the adverse events of plant-based Cannabis.

HIV infection. Data on Cannabis for the treatment of refractory neuropathy and appetite stimulation in HIV infection is mixed.^10,11 Smoked Cannabis for medically refractory neuropathy was examined in several trials:

• In a randomized crossover trial, researchers found statistically significant subjective improvement in neuropathic pain, with minimal intolerable adverse effects, in the 28 HIV-infected participants who completed the trial.¹¹
• In another study,Cannabis ingested in various forms resulted in appetite stimulation in late-stage HIV infection but did not produce statistically significant weight gain.¹⁰

Pediatric epilepsy. Research on pediatric patients who have epilepsy characterized by refractory seizures has shown that the impact of Cannabis on their disease is promising. Specifically, CBD has shown tremendous potential impact: Patients experienced a statistically significant reduction in the number of seizures.⁹ In 2018, the FDA approved the first plant-based derivative of Cannabis: an oral cannabidiol (marketed as Epidiolex [Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.]) for the treatment of intractable seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, rare and severe forms of epilepsy. Epidiolex is the first FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from marijuana.

CASE

Mr. S’s diagnosis of cancer is broadly included in the list of Cannabis-qualifying illnesses in all 34 states that certify patients for medical Cannabis. He qualifies both because (1) he is a cancer patient and (2) he has not found relief from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with several targeted therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine-receptor antagonists, steroids, and antipsychotics. Evidence supports CB₁ and CB₂ as potential targets for antiemetic treatment.

Research suggests that the use of Cannabis for pediatric patients with refractory seizures is promising.

Given Mr. S’s consequent anorexia, his frustration with taking an increasing number of medications, and possible adverse effects of additional therapy, Cannabis is a reasonable course of action to treat nausea and vomiting. He would be able to use oral tincture or vaporization of oil to further limit his pill burden—likely, with a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1 or similar.

Continue to: Based on recent observational data...

 

Based on recent observational data from New York Cannabis dispensaries, cancer patients pursing Cannabis to treat chemotherapy-induced symptoms report that (1) either products with a high concentration of THC or products that contain THC and CBD in a 1:1 ratio are most effective and (2) products in 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD are most tolerable.

A legal system at oddsover the status of medical Cannabis

The core legal issue underlying medical Cannabis is a contradiction between federal and state laws.

At the federal level. The federal government regulates the lawful production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).¹² The CSA is the basis for categorizing certain plants, drugs, and chemicals into 5 schedules, based on the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.¹³ Under the CSA, marijuana (along with substances such as heroin and methamphetamine) is categorized as Schedule I¹⁴; ie, the substance

• has high potential for abuse,
• has no accepted therapeutic medical use in the United States, and
• lacks acceptable safety for use under medical supervision.

Despite waxing and waning efforts to protect states from federal prosecution, any use of a Schedule-1 substance violates federal law.¹⁵

Physicians are protected from prosecution or revocation of their prescriptive authority based on their First Amendment right to discuss medical marijuana with patients.

In June 2018, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill designed to amend the CSA and guarantee the rights of states and territories to self-determine marijuana regulation. The bill established a so-called STATES (Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States) Act that “amends the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) so that—as states and tribes comply with a few basic protections—its provisions no longer apply to any person acting in compliance with state or tribal laws relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marijuana.”¹⁵

Continue to: The bill was referred to the Senate...

 

The bill was referred to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees but, ultimately, the STATES Act was blocked from debate in 2018.

On April 4, 2019, the Act was reintroduced in the House (H.R. 2093) and Senate (S. 1028) of the 116th Congress. Although there is bipartisan support for this bill, the timeline for moving it forward is unclear.^16,17

At the state level. Thirty-four states have comprehensive public medical marijuana and Cannabis programs. The National Conference of State Legislatures¹⁸ (www.ncsl.org) designates a program “comprehensive” if it

• includes protection from criminal penalties for using marijuana for a medical purpose,
• allows access to marijuana through home cultivation, dispensaries, or other system,
• permits a variety of strains, including those more potent than what is labeled “low-THC,” and
• allows smoking or vaporization of marijuana products, plant-based material, or extract.

An additional 14 states allow for “low-THC, high-CBD” products for medical reasons, in limited situations, or as a legal defense. Regulation in these states varies widely, however: Some states allow industrialized hemp products only; others do not provide for any in-state production.¹⁸

Last, many states have some form of so-called “affirmative-defense” statutes that allow people charged with marijuana possession to mention use of marijuana for medical purposes as a possible defense.

Continue to: Physician shield

 

Physician shield. Despite inconsistent and evolving state and federal laws, physicians are protected, based on the Conant v Walters decision, from prosecution or revocation of their prescriptive authority for the professional “recommendation” of the use of medical marijuana.¹⁹ In 2002, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the permanent injunction, based on a physician’s First Amendment right to discuss medical marijuana with patients.

CASE

Mr. S is amenable to trial of Cannabis to relieve nausea and anorexia. He asks you if he is allowed to use Cannabis at work, were he to return to an office-based desk job—even part-time—during treatment for cancer.

How would you answer Mr. S? Patients are legally protected from workplace penalties and dismissal for using and consuming Cannabis in states with a medical Cannabis law (including the state in which Mr. S resides). However, all employers have some variability in corporate policy, especially if a person works in a federally supported or regulated occupation. It’s always helpful to advise patients who will be using medical Cannabis to be proactive and speak with a human resources or employee health department staff member before beginning a course of medical Cannabis. Additionally, Cannabis with any amount of THC has the ability to alter focus, concentration, and perceptions of time. Thus, if a patient using medical Cannabis with THC asks about driving to work, he should be given the same advice one would offer about driving after consuming alcohol or ingesting opioids.

Common concerns

Ignorance of legal status. Theoretically, the Conant v Walters decision protects physicians from investigation for recommending medical Cannabis even in states where it is illegal. However, you should adhere closely to procedures set out by your state. The National Council of State Legislatures provides up-to-date information on each state’s procedures and programs,¹⁸ and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (www.asam.org) has established standards of professionalism for physicians who discuss medical Cannabis with patients (TABLE).²⁰

Exposure to smoke. Cannabis smoke carries many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke; furthermore, use of Cannabis and tobacco are highly correlated, confounding many population-based studies. The manner of inhalation of Cannabis can result in significantly higher levels of tar and carbon dioxide than with tobacco smoking. Because the effects of Cannabis last longer, however, people who smoke Cannabis may smoke it less often than tobacco smokers smoke tobacco.²¹

Continue to: Large cross-sectional...

 

Large cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have not found a link between Cannabis smoking and long-term pulmonary consequences, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.^22,23 The technology of Cannabis delivery systems has progressed far more rapidly than the clinical evidence for or against such technology.

Delayed onset of edible products and variation of THC concentration increase risk of overconsumption.

“Vaping” is an informal term for inhalation of aerosolized Cannabis components and water vapor. Vaporizers do not heat Cannabis to the point of combustion; therefore, they provide less exposure to smoke-related toxicants while providing similar time of onset.

Neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Data regarding the relationship between Cannabis use and psychiatric disorders are incompletely understood, in conflict, and related to cannabinoid type. Consider Pennsylvania’s addition of anxiety disorder as a “serious medical condition” covered under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act.²⁴ Although patients often report the use of medical Cannabis to treat anxiety,²⁵ panic attacks are often associated with Cannabis use.²⁶

While there is a clear association between Cannabis use and psychotic disorder, a causal link has yet to be unequivocally established. However, the rate of psychiatric hospitalization is increased in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia patients who use Cannabis heavily.²⁷

We recommend, therefore, that physicians screen patients for serious mental health concerns before recommending or certifying them to use medical Cannabis.

Continue to: Overconsumption of edibles

 

Overconsumption of edibles. Cannabis edibles (ie, food products infused with Cannabis extract) are distinct from inhaled Cannabis in regard to onset, duration, and potential for adverse effects. Cannabis edibles might be more popular than inhaled products among older medical Cannabis users.²⁸

Edible Cannabis has a reported onset of 1 to 3 hours (compared to 5-10 minutes with inhaled Cannabis) and a duration of effect of 6 to 8 hours (compared with 2-4 hours for inhaled products).²⁹ These qualities might render Cannabis edibles preferable to inhaled formulations for controlling chronic symptoms and conditions. However, delayed onset of edible products and wide variation in the concentration of THC also increase the risk of overconsumption, which can lead to overdose and self-limited Cannabis-induced psychosis. We recommend providing patient education about the effects of the physiologically active therapeutic compounds tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, to prevent overconsumption of high-THC products.³⁰

CASE

Mr. S returns to your office after a trial of Cannabis as vaporized oil and reports some relief of nausea and a mild increase in appetite, but no weight gain. He is concerned about overconsumption or overdose, and asks you what the risks of these problems are.

How should you counsel Mr. S? Explain that ingestion of Cannabis has a prolonged onset of action; vaporization has a more rapid onset of action; therefore, he could more easily self-regulate ingestion with the vehicle he has chosen. In states where edible Cannabis products are legal, education is necessary so that patients know how much of the edible to consume and how long they will wait to feel the full impact of the effects of THC.³⁰

Cannabis use disorder in the context of medical marijuana

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) incorporates general diagnostic features of a substance use disorder, including behavioral, cognitive, and physiologic symptoms such as cravings, tolerance, and withdrawal, in the setting of persistent use despite significant substance-related problems.³¹ Features of Cannabis withdrawal syndrome include irritability, anger or aggression, anxiety, depressed mood, restlessness, sleep difficulty, and decreased appetite or weight loss.³¹ Cannabis use disorder can develop in people who use medical Cannabis; however, physiologic symptoms of tolerance and withdrawal can also develop in the setting of appropriate medical use and do not, in isolation, represent CUD.

Continue to: A recent study...

 

A recent study considered nationwide cross-sectional survey data from the US National Survey of Drug Use and Health to examine the relationship between medical marijuana laws and CUD.³² Study findings did not show an increase in the prevalence of CUD or marijuana use among adults in states with a legalized medical marijuana program. Importantly, when researchers looked at marijuana use among adolescents and young adults, they found no increase in measured outcomes (eg, active [ie, past-month] marijuana use, heavy [> 300 d/yr] use, and a diagnosis of CUD) after medical marijuana laws were passed.³²

A paucity of pediatric data

Cannabis smoke carries many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.

The adolescent brain might be more vulnerable to the adverse long-term effects of Cannabis; there is potential significant harm associated with Cannabis in children and adolescence. However, accurate data concerning risk and benefit are limited.

The most recent policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reflects this paucity of data.³³ The AAP opposes the use of medical Cannabis outside regulation by the FDA, although the organization allows for consideration of compassionate use of medical Cannabis for children who have life-threatening or severely disabling conditions. The AAP does support (1) additional research into pharmaceutical cannabinoids and (2) changing Cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II to facilitate this process. Since the publication of the policy statement, Pediatrics, the official journal of the AAP, has published a review of medical cannabinoids and found (1) strong evidence for benefit in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and (2) accumulating evidence of benefit in epilepsy.³⁴

Recognized risk: Not supporting medical Cannabis

At press time, the CDC issued a statement on respiratory illnesses reported after use of e-cigarette products. To learn more, go to www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0830-statement-e-cigarette.html.

As with all medical decisions, the risks and benefits of certifying patients for medical Cannabis must be balanced against the risks and benefits of not doing so. The risks that accompany failure to certify a patient for medical marijuana fall into 3 categories:

Blocking access to a substance that has potential therapeutic benefit. More data regarding the potential benefits and risks of medical Cannabis will, undoubtedly, dispel some of the uncertainty regarding the decision to certify a patient for medical Cannabis. When you recommend medical Cannabis and certify patients for its use, you do so with the certainty that the Cannabis safety index (ie, risk of overdose or serious adverse effects) is exceedingly low.³⁵

Continue to: Limiting patients to other medications

 

Limiting patients to other medications that, potentially, carry a risk of more or greater harmful effects. An example is the decision to prescribe an opioid for chronic pain instead of certifying a patient for medical Cannabis. For certain other conditions, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, FDA-approved pharmaceuticals might have more reported serious adverse events and interactions than medical Cannabis.³⁶

 Resigning patients to obtain Cannabis from an illegal source.  This speaks to harm reduction and social justice, because obtaining Cannabis from an illegal source carries health and legal risks:

• Increased health risks result from lacing or cutting botanical or synthetic Cannabis products with potentially toxic substances. Cocaine, the rodenticide brodifacoum, methamphetamine, and phencyclidine are all known, or have been reported, to be added to botanical and synthetic Cannabis.³⁷
• Legal repercussions of Cannabis possession are disproportionately racially based, with a significantly higher arrest rate among people of color, even in states where medical Cannabis has been legalized.³⁸

CORRESPONDENCE
Lara Carson Weinstein, MD, MPH, DrPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, PA 19107; [email protected].

CASE

Barry S, a 45-year-old man with a new diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, recently started induction chemotherapy. He has struggled with nausea, profound gustatory changes, and poor appetite; various antiemetics have provided only minimal relief. He tells you that he is hesitant to try “yet another pill” but has heard and read that marijuana (genus Cannabis) is used to alleviate disruptive chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. He asks if this is a treatment you’d recommend for him.

As Mr. S’s physician, how do you respond?

Understandably, some family physicians are hesitant to recommend an unregulated, federally illegal substance characterized by conflicting or absent evidence of safety and effectiveness.¹ Nevertheless, throughout history and in the current court of public opinion, medical Cannabis has overwhelming support,² leading to legalization in most of the United States.

As with many traditionally accepted therapies (whether they are or are not supported by substantial evidence), physicians are expected to provide individualized guidance regarding minimizing risk and maximizing benefit of the therapeutic use of Cannabis. The rapidly growing scientific and commercial fields of medical Cannabis guarantee that information on this topic will constantly be changing—and will often be contradictory. In this article, we review the most common concerns about medical Cannabis and provide up-to-date evidence on its use.

The pharmacology of cannabis

Cannabis sativa was among the earliest plants cultivated by man, with the first evidence of its use in China, approximately 4000 BC, to make twine and rope from its fibers.³ Records of medicinal Cannabis date back to the world’s oldest pharmacopoeia, a written summary of what was known about herbal medicine through the late 16th century.⁴

Common forms of plant-based Cannabis include leaf that is smoked or vaporized, oral tincture, pill, and oil concentrate that can be vaporized.

The 2 principal species of Cannabis are sativa and indica. There is no good medical evidence to separate the impacts of either strain; however, a staggering amount of lay information exists about the reported differing effects of each strain.⁵

Chemical constituents. Phytocannabinoids derived from C sativa are the plant’s best-known proteins, constituting a complex lipid-signaling network involved in numerous physiological processes. There are more than 100 known phytocannabinoids, the most well-recognized being Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Additional sources of cannabinoids include endogenous cannabinoids, or endocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids.

The endocannabinoid system, comprising cannabinoid receptors, endocannabinoids, and their specific enzymes, is a potential therapeutic target for a variety of pathologic processes.^6,7 The 2 most well-studied targets for cannabinoids in the human body are the cannabinoid receptors CB₁ and CB₂, found throughout the body: CB₁, predominantly in the central and peripheral nervous system, and CB₂ in a more limited distribution in the immune and hematopoietic systems. Other pathways activated or antagonized by THC and CBD exist, but are less well-mapped than CB₁ and CB₂.

[polldaddy:10402702]

Continue to: Botanical or synthetic?

 

Botanical or synthetic? It is important to distinguish between synthetic and plant-based cannabinoids, for you and your patients' benefit. Pharmaceutical (synthetic) THC is just that: THC alone. Whole-plant Cannabis, on the other hand, has hundreds of additional chemicals—most notably, phytocannabinoids and terpenoids. Data on the mechanisms of action and interactions of these additional chemicals are limited.

Although clinical trials have been undertaken with synthetic cannabinoids, there is increasing understanding and interest in the medical community of whole-plant Cannabis as a distinct entity. For example, nabiximols is a novel development in plant-based Cannabis products. Available as an oromucosal spray, a dose provides THC and CBD at 2.7 mg/100 mcL. Nabiximols is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but is widely used in Canada and Europe.

PHOTO: ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ 2019; PHOTO MANIPULATION: JOHN DENAPOLI

A third class of Cannabis comprises nonregulated synthetic cannabinoids that have no medically recognized benefit. They are solely a drug of abuse; common names include “K2” and “Spice.” These cannabinoids are outside of the scope of our discussion, but patients and providers should be aware of these cannabinoids because they are street-available. Unsuspecting patients might not know the difference between abusive and therapeutic formulations.⁸

Delivery and strength. Common forms of plant-based Cannabis include leaf that is smoked or vaporized, oral tincture, pill, and oil concentrate that can be vaporized. All forms come in a range of THC:CBD ratios—from as high as 90% THC content to 0% THC and all CBD-based content. Patients who are naïve to Cannabis might be concerned about formulations with a high THC concentration because of the psychoactive effects of this substance. Given the minimal CNS activity of CBD, a tolerable therapeutic starting point often is a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1, which contains a lower percentage of THC.⁴

Physiologic effects. THC is a partial agonist of CB₁ and CB₂ receptors; CBD functions as an antagonist at both receptors. The primary effects of THC result from activation of CB₁ receptors, which exist in various areas of the cerebrum and cerebellum, as well as in the spinal cord.⁷ THC exerts its psychotropic effects at CB₁ sites in the central nervous system; CBD can antagonize these THC effects at CB₁ receptors. CBD also has anti-inflammatory and other effects that are mediated through peripherally distributed CB₂ receptors.⁹

Continue to: THC has tremendously...

 

A tolerable therapeutic starting point is a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1.

THC has tremendously complex capacity for activation and inhibition within various neuronal circuits, resulting in effects on mood, appetite, and movement.^1,7 Adverse effects associated with Cannabis are wide-ranging: Most commonly, nausea, drowsiness, fatigue, dry mouth, and dizziness are reported alongside cognitive effects. Rarely, tachycardia, hypotension, hyperemesis, and depression can be seen.

Clinical implications and indications

Clinical indications for legal medical Cannabis vary by state; typically, indications include human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, severe and chronic pain, spasticity from neurodegenerative disorders, and irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease, as well as a wide range of less-universal diagnoses. A patient may have a so-called qualifying diagnosis (ie, having the potential to allow the patient to be certified to purchase and use Cannabis) in one state but not have the same standing in a neighboring state, posing a complex legal issue. Given the significant complexities of performing medical research with plant-based Cannabis in the United States, little research has been done. The result? Policymakers are grappling with questions that only scientific research can answer:

• For which conditions does Cannabis provide medicinal benefit equal to or superior to alternatives?
• What are the appropriate dosages (or CBD:THC ratios), formulations (plant-derived or synthetic), and routes of administration (smoked, ingested, or topical) for various conditions?

Bird’s-eye view of clinical research. A meta-analysis of isolated synthetic and plant-based cannabinoids for medical use was published in 2015.¹⁰ The analysis included more than 6000 patients in 79 trials, most of which assessed whether dronabinol or nabilone (both synthetic isolates) were effective compared to placebo or alternative non-Cannabis-based therapy. The studies examined chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, appetite stimulation in HIV and AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, and psychosis.

Twenty-eight studies assessed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. All of these studies indicated a greater benefit from cannabinoids than from alternative antiemetic regimens and placebo; however, that finding did not reach statistical significance across all studies.

There was moderate evidence to suggest the use of Cannabis for neuropathic and nonneuropathic cancer-related pain. However, there is an increased short-term risk of adverse events with synthetic isolates dronabinol (when used for pain) and nabilone (when used for nausea and vomiting).

Continue to: The primary conclusion...

 

The primary conclusion of the meta-analysis is that further study is required because little evidence exists on the effects and the adverse events of plant-based Cannabis.

HIV infection. Data on Cannabis for the treatment of refractory neuropathy and appetite stimulation in HIV infection is mixed.^10,11 Smoked Cannabis for medically refractory neuropathy was examined in several trials:

• In a randomized crossover trial, researchers found statistically significant subjective improvement in neuropathic pain, with minimal intolerable adverse effects, in the 28 HIV-infected participants who completed the trial.¹¹
• In another study,Cannabis ingested in various forms resulted in appetite stimulation in late-stage HIV infection but did not produce statistically significant weight gain.¹⁰

Pediatric epilepsy. Research on pediatric patients who have epilepsy characterized by refractory seizures has shown that the impact of Cannabis on their disease is promising. Specifically, CBD has shown tremendous potential impact: Patients experienced a statistically significant reduction in the number of seizures.⁹ In 2018, the FDA approved the first plant-based derivative of Cannabis: an oral cannabidiol (marketed as Epidiolex [Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.]) for the treatment of intractable seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, rare and severe forms of epilepsy. Epidiolex is the first FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from marijuana.

CASE

Mr. S’s diagnosis of cancer is broadly included in the list of Cannabis-qualifying illnesses in all 34 states that certify patients for medical Cannabis. He qualifies both because (1) he is a cancer patient and (2) he has not found relief from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with several targeted therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine-receptor antagonists, steroids, and antipsychotics. Evidence supports CB₁ and CB₂ as potential targets for antiemetic treatment.

Research suggests that the use of Cannabis for pediatric patients with refractory seizures is promising.

Given Mr. S’s consequent anorexia, his frustration with taking an increasing number of medications, and possible adverse effects of additional therapy, Cannabis is a reasonable course of action to treat nausea and vomiting. He would be able to use oral tincture or vaporization of oil to further limit his pill burden—likely, with a THC:CBD ratio of 1:1 or similar.

Continue to: Based on recent observational data...

 

Based on recent observational data from New York Cannabis dispensaries, cancer patients pursing Cannabis to treat chemotherapy-induced symptoms report that (1) either products with a high concentration of THC or products that contain THC and CBD in a 1:1 ratio are most effective and (2) products in 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD are most tolerable.

A legal system at oddsover the status of medical Cannabis

The core legal issue underlying medical Cannabis is a contradiction between federal and state laws.

At the federal level. The federal government regulates the lawful production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).¹² The CSA is the basis for categorizing certain plants, drugs, and chemicals into 5 schedules, based on the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.¹³ Under the CSA, marijuana (along with substances such as heroin and methamphetamine) is categorized as Schedule I¹⁴; ie, the substance

• has high potential for abuse,
• has no accepted therapeutic medical use in the United States, and
• lacks acceptable safety for use under medical supervision.

Despite waxing and waning efforts to protect states from federal prosecution, any use of a Schedule-1 substance violates federal law.¹⁵

Physicians are protected from prosecution or revocation of their prescriptive authority based on their First Amendment right to discuss medical marijuana with patients.

In June 2018, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill designed to amend the CSA and guarantee the rights of states and territories to self-determine marijuana regulation. The bill established a so-called STATES (Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States) Act that “amends the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) so that—as states and tribes comply with a few basic protections—its provisions no longer apply to any person acting in compliance with state or tribal laws relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marijuana.”¹⁵

Continue to: The bill was referred to the Senate...

 

The bill was referred to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees but, ultimately, the STATES Act was blocked from debate in 2018.

On April 4, 2019, the Act was reintroduced in the House (H.R. 2093) and Senate (S. 1028) of the 116th Congress. Although there is bipartisan support for this bill, the timeline for moving it forward is unclear.^16,17

At the state level. Thirty-four states have comprehensive public medical marijuana and Cannabis programs. The National Conference of State Legislatures¹⁸ (www.ncsl.org) designates a program “comprehensive” if it

• includes protection from criminal penalties for using marijuana for a medical purpose,
• allows access to marijuana through home cultivation, dispensaries, or other system,
• permits a variety of strains, including those more potent than what is labeled “low-THC,” and
• allows smoking or vaporization of marijuana products, plant-based material, or extract.

An additional 14 states allow for “low-THC, high-CBD” products for medical reasons, in limited situations, or as a legal defense. Regulation in these states varies widely, however: Some states allow industrialized hemp products only; others do not provide for any in-state production.¹⁸

Last, many states have some form of so-called “affirmative-defense” statutes that allow people charged with marijuana possession to mention use of marijuana for medical purposes as a possible defense.

Continue to: Physician shield

 

Physician shield. Despite inconsistent and evolving state and federal laws, physicians are protected, based on the Conant v Walters decision, from prosecution or revocation of their prescriptive authority for the professional “recommendation” of the use of medical marijuana.¹⁹ In 2002, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the permanent injunction, based on a physician’s First Amendment right to discuss medical marijuana with patients.

CASE

Mr. S is amenable to trial of Cannabis to relieve nausea and anorexia. He asks you if he is allowed to use Cannabis at work, were he to return to an office-based desk job—even part-time—during treatment for cancer.

How would you answer Mr. S? Patients are legally protected from workplace penalties and dismissal for using and consuming Cannabis in states with a medical Cannabis law (including the state in which Mr. S resides). However, all employers have some variability in corporate policy, especially if a person works in a federally supported or regulated occupation. It’s always helpful to advise patients who will be using medical Cannabis to be proactive and speak with a human resources or employee health department staff member before beginning a course of medical Cannabis. Additionally, Cannabis with any amount of THC has the ability to alter focus, concentration, and perceptions of time. Thus, if a patient using medical Cannabis with THC asks about driving to work, he should be given the same advice one would offer about driving after consuming alcohol or ingesting opioids.

Common concerns

Ignorance of legal status. Theoretically, the Conant v Walters decision protects physicians from investigation for recommending medical Cannabis even in states where it is illegal. However, you should adhere closely to procedures set out by your state. The National Council of State Legislatures provides up-to-date information on each state’s procedures and programs,¹⁸ and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (www.asam.org) has established standards of professionalism for physicians who discuss medical Cannabis with patients (TABLE).²⁰

Exposure to smoke. Cannabis smoke carries many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke; furthermore, use of Cannabis and tobacco are highly correlated, confounding many population-based studies. The manner of inhalation of Cannabis can result in significantly higher levels of tar and carbon dioxide than with tobacco smoking. Because the effects of Cannabis last longer, however, people who smoke Cannabis may smoke it less often than tobacco smokers smoke tobacco.²¹

Continue to: Large cross-sectional...

 

Large cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have not found a link between Cannabis smoking and long-term pulmonary consequences, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.^22,23 The technology of Cannabis delivery systems has progressed far more rapidly than the clinical evidence for or against such technology.

Delayed onset of edible products and variation of THC concentration increase risk of overconsumption.

“Vaping” is an informal term for inhalation of aerosolized Cannabis components and water vapor. Vaporizers do not heat Cannabis to the point of combustion; therefore, they provide less exposure to smoke-related toxicants while providing similar time of onset.

Neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Data regarding the relationship between Cannabis use and psychiatric disorders are incompletely understood, in conflict, and related to cannabinoid type. Consider Pennsylvania’s addition of anxiety disorder as a “serious medical condition” covered under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act.²⁴ Although patients often report the use of medical Cannabis to treat anxiety,²⁵ panic attacks are often associated with Cannabis use.²⁶

While there is a clear association between Cannabis use and psychotic disorder, a causal link has yet to be unequivocally established. However, the rate of psychiatric hospitalization is increased in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia patients who use Cannabis heavily.²⁷

We recommend, therefore, that physicians screen patients for serious mental health concerns before recommending or certifying them to use medical Cannabis.

Continue to: Overconsumption of edibles

 

Overconsumption of edibles. Cannabis edibles (ie, food products infused with Cannabis extract) are distinct from inhaled Cannabis in regard to onset, duration, and potential for adverse effects. Cannabis edibles might be more popular than inhaled products among older medical Cannabis users.²⁸

Edible Cannabis has a reported onset of 1 to 3 hours (compared to 5-10 minutes with inhaled Cannabis) and a duration of effect of 6 to 8 hours (compared with 2-4 hours for inhaled products).²⁹ These qualities might render Cannabis edibles preferable to inhaled formulations for controlling chronic symptoms and conditions. However, delayed onset of edible products and wide variation in the concentration of THC also increase the risk of overconsumption, which can lead to overdose and self-limited Cannabis-induced psychosis. We recommend providing patient education about the effects of the physiologically active therapeutic compounds tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, to prevent overconsumption of high-THC products.³⁰

CASE

Mr. S returns to your office after a trial of Cannabis as vaporized oil and reports some relief of nausea and a mild increase in appetite, but no weight gain. He is concerned about overconsumption or overdose, and asks you what the risks of these problems are.

How should you counsel Mr. S? Explain that ingestion of Cannabis has a prolonged onset of action; vaporization has a more rapid onset of action; therefore, he could more easily self-regulate ingestion with the vehicle he has chosen. In states where edible Cannabis products are legal, education is necessary so that patients know how much of the edible to consume and how long they will wait to feel the full impact of the effects of THC.³⁰

Cannabis use disorder in the context of medical marijuana

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) incorporates general diagnostic features of a substance use disorder, including behavioral, cognitive, and physiologic symptoms such as cravings, tolerance, and withdrawal, in the setting of persistent use despite significant substance-related problems.³¹ Features of Cannabis withdrawal syndrome include irritability, anger or aggression, anxiety, depressed mood, restlessness, sleep difficulty, and decreased appetite or weight loss.³¹ Cannabis use disorder can develop in people who use medical Cannabis; however, physiologic symptoms of tolerance and withdrawal can also develop in the setting of appropriate medical use and do not, in isolation, represent CUD.

Continue to: A recent study...

 

A recent study considered nationwide cross-sectional survey data from the US National Survey of Drug Use and Health to examine the relationship between medical marijuana laws and CUD.³² Study findings did not show an increase in the prevalence of CUD or marijuana use among adults in states with a legalized medical marijuana program. Importantly, when researchers looked at marijuana use among adolescents and young adults, they found no increase in measured outcomes (eg, active [ie, past-month] marijuana use, heavy [> 300 d/yr] use, and a diagnosis of CUD) after medical marijuana laws were passed.³²

A paucity of pediatric data

Cannabis smoke carries many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.

The adolescent brain might be more vulnerable to the adverse long-term effects of Cannabis; there is potential significant harm associated with Cannabis in children and adolescence. However, accurate data concerning risk and benefit are limited.

The most recent policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reflects this paucity of data.³³ The AAP opposes the use of medical Cannabis outside regulation by the FDA, although the organization allows for consideration of compassionate use of medical Cannabis for children who have life-threatening or severely disabling conditions. The AAP does support (1) additional research into pharmaceutical cannabinoids and (2) changing Cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II to facilitate this process. Since the publication of the policy statement, Pediatrics, the official journal of the AAP, has published a review of medical cannabinoids and found (1) strong evidence for benefit in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and (2) accumulating evidence of benefit in epilepsy.³⁴

Recognized risk: Not supporting medical Cannabis

At press time, the CDC issued a statement on respiratory illnesses reported after use of e-cigarette products. To learn more, go to www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0830-statement-e-cigarette.html.

As with all medical decisions, the risks and benefits of certifying patients for medical Cannabis must be balanced against the risks and benefits of not doing so. The risks that accompany failure to certify a patient for medical marijuana fall into 3 categories:

Blocking access to a substance that has potential therapeutic benefit. More data regarding the potential benefits and risks of medical Cannabis will, undoubtedly, dispel some of the uncertainty regarding the decision to certify a patient for medical Cannabis. When you recommend medical Cannabis and certify patients for its use, you do so with the certainty that the Cannabis safety index (ie, risk of overdose or serious adverse effects) is exceedingly low.³⁵

Continue to: Limiting patients to other medications

 

Limiting patients to other medications that, potentially, carry a risk of more or greater harmful effects. An example is the decision to prescribe an opioid for chronic pain instead of certifying a patient for medical Cannabis. For certain other conditions, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, FDA-approved pharmaceuticals might have more reported serious adverse events and interactions than medical Cannabis.³⁶

 Resigning patients to obtain Cannabis from an illegal source.  This speaks to harm reduction and social justice, because obtaining Cannabis from an illegal source carries health and legal risks:

• Increased health risks result from lacing or cutting botanical or synthetic Cannabis products with potentially toxic substances. Cocaine, the rodenticide brodifacoum, methamphetamine, and phencyclidine are all known, or have been reported, to be added to botanical and synthetic Cannabis.³⁷
• Legal repercussions of Cannabis possession are disproportionately racially based, with a significantly higher arrest rate among people of color, even in states where medical Cannabis has been legalized.³⁸

CORRESPONDENCE
Lara Carson Weinstein, MD, MPH, DrPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, PA 19107; [email protected].